U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was $40,000.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely. Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was
$40,000.
Repeat Finding from
Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was $40,000.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely. Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was
$40,000.
Repeat Finding from
Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was $40,000.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely. Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was
$40,000.
Repeat Finding from
Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was $40,000.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely. Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was
$40,000.
Repeat Finding from
Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was $40,000.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely. Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was
$40,000.
Repeat Finding from
Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was $40,000.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely. Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was
$40,000.
Repeat Finding from
Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was $40,000.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely. Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was
$40,000.
Repeat Finding from
Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was $40,000.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely. Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was
$40,000.
Repeat Finding from
Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was $40,000.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely. Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was
$40,000.
Repeat Finding from
Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was $40,000.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely. Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was
$40,000.
Repeat Finding from
Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through the State of Nevada as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Adult Education – Basic Grants to States, 84.002
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.002 for WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
The pass-through entity requires the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and reviewer.
Cause: Western Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the pass-through entity.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the pass-through entity and funds may not be drawn on a reimbursement basis and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 12 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 76 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. Three of the Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to WNC. We noted that there was no evidence of review on any of the three Requests for Reimbursement.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through the State of Nevada as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Adult Education – Basic Grants to States, 84.002
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.002 for WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
The pass-through entity requires the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and reviewer.
Cause: Western Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the pass-through entity.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the pass-through entity and funds may not be drawn on a reimbursement basis and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 12 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 76 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. Three of the Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to WNC. We noted that there was no evidence of review on any of the three Requests for Reimbursement.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through the State of Nevada as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Adult Education – Basic Grants to States, 84.002
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.002 for WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
The pass-through entity requires the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and reviewer.
Cause: Western Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the pass-through entity.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the pass-through entity and funds may not be drawn on a reimbursement basis and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 12 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 76 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. Three of the Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to WNC. We noted that there was no evidence of review on any of the three Requests for Reimbursement.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through the State of Nevada as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Adult Education – Basic Grants to States, 84.002
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.002 for WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
The pass-through entity requires the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and reviewer.
Cause: Western Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the pass-through entity.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the pass-through entity and funds may not be drawn on a reimbursement basis and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 12 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 76 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. Three of the Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to WNC. We noted that there was no evidence of review on any of the three Requests for Reimbursement.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through the State of Nevada as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Adult Education – Basic Grants to States, 84.002
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.002 for WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
The pass-through entity requires the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and reviewer.
Cause: Western Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the pass-through entity.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the pass-through entity and funds may not be drawn on a reimbursement basis and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 12 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 76 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. Three of the Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to WNC. We noted that there was no evidence of review on any of the three Requests for Reimbursement.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through the State of Nevada as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Adult Education – Basic Grants to States, 84.002
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.002 for WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
The pass-through entity requires the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and reviewer.
Cause: Western Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the pass-through entity.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the pass-through entity and funds may not be drawn on a reimbursement basis and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 12 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 76 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. Three of the Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to WNC. We noted that there was no evidence of review on any of the three Requests for Reimbursement.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through the State of Nevada as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Adult Education – Basic Grants to States, 84.002
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.002 for WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
The pass-through entity requires the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and reviewer.
Cause: Western Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the pass-through entity.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the pass-through entity and funds may not be drawn on a reimbursement basis and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 12 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 76 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. Three of the Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to WNC. We noted that there was no evidence of review on any of the three Requests for Reimbursement.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through the State of Nevada as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Adult Education – Basic Grants to States, 84.002
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.002 for WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
The pass-through entity requires the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and reviewer.
Cause: Western Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the pass-through entity.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the pass-through entity and funds may not be drawn on a reimbursement basis and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 12 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 76 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. Three of the Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to WNC. We noted that there was no evidence of review on any of the three Requests for Reimbursement.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through the State of Nevada as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Adult Education – Basic Grants to States, 84.002
Earmarking
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.002 for WNC and CSN on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
Section 121(b)(1)(A) of WIOA provides that eligible providers must use at least 95 percent of the funds received from the state eligible agency to carry out adult education and literacy activities unless a lower limit has been agreed to by the state eligible agency. Eligible providers may use up to five percent of their funds for noninstructional costs, including planning, administration, professional development, providing services in alignment with the local workforce development plan and fulfilling certain one-stop partner responsibilities.
The state eligible agency agreed to lower adult education and literacy limits and higher maximum noninstructional limits for the College of Southern Nevada and Western Nevada College as follows:
o College of Southern Nevada
Basic Instruction: Instructional – 77.6% / Non-instructional 22.40%
Integrated English Literacy and Civics Instruction: Instructional – 88% / Non-instructional 12%
o Western Nevada College
Basic Instruction: Instructional – 74.83% / Non-instructional 15.27%
Integrated English Literacy and Civics Instruction: Instructional – 90% / Non-instructional 10%
Condition: There was no evidence of reviewing budget to actual expenditures to ensure compliance with the earmarking requirement. In addition, spending on non-instructional costs exceeded the maximum limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Cause: The College of Southern Nevada (CSN) and Western Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure non-instructional costs did not exceed the maximum proportional limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Effect: Administrative non-instructional costs exceeded the allowable amount and may subsequently exceed the allowable amount and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 12 monthly budget to actual expense reconciliations out of a population of 48 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. In addition, the instructional earmark was tested as a whole for each applicable institution.
The following errors were noted by each institution:
College of Southern Nevada
CSN exceeded the maximum spending for non-instructional expenditures as follows:
Program Allowable Non-Instructional % Actual Non-Instructional % Questioned Costs
Basic 22.40% 22.77% $6,363
Western Nevada College
Three monthly budget to actual expense reconciliations were applicable to WNC. We noted that there was no evidence of review on any of the three reconciliations.
WNC exceeded the maximum spending for non-instructional expenditures as follows:
Program Allowable Non-Instructional % Actual Non-Instructional % Questioned Costs
IEL and Civics 10.00% 16.84% $17,308
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend CSN and WNC enhance internal controls to ensure non-instructional costs do not exceed the maximum proportional limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Views of Responsible Officials: The College of Southern Nevada agrees with this finding. Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through the State of Nevada as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Adult Education – Basic Grants to States, 84.002
Earmarking
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.002 for WNC and CSN on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
Section 121(b)(1)(A) of WIOA provides that eligible providers must use at least 95 percent of the funds received from the state eligible agency to carry out adult education and literacy activities unless a lower limit has been agreed to by the state eligible agency. Eligible providers may use up to five percent of their funds for noninstructional costs, including planning, administration, professional development, providing services in alignment with the local workforce development plan and fulfilling certain one-stop partner responsibilities.
The state eligible agency agreed to lower adult education and literacy limits and higher maximum noninstructional limits for the College of Southern Nevada and Western Nevada College as follows:
o College of Southern Nevada
Basic Instruction: Instructional – 77.6% / Non-instructional 22.40%
Integrated English Literacy and Civics Instruction: Instructional – 88% / Non-instructional 12%
o Western Nevada College
Basic Instruction: Instructional – 74.83% / Non-instructional 15.27%
Integrated English Literacy and Civics Instruction: Instructional – 90% / Non-instructional 10%
Condition: There was no evidence of reviewing budget to actual expenditures to ensure compliance with the earmarking requirement. In addition, spending on non-instructional costs exceeded the maximum limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Cause: The College of Southern Nevada (CSN) and Western Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure non-instructional costs did not exceed the maximum proportional limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Effect: Administrative non-instructional costs exceeded the allowable amount and may subsequently exceed the allowable amount and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 12 monthly budget to actual expense reconciliations out of a population of 48 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. In addition, the instructional earmark was tested as a whole for each applicable institution.
The following errors were noted by each institution:
College of Southern Nevada
CSN exceeded the maximum spending for non-instructional expenditures as follows:
Program Allowable Non-Instructional % Actual Non-Instructional % Questioned Costs
Basic 22.40% 22.77% $6,363
Western Nevada College
Three monthly budget to actual expense reconciliations were applicable to WNC. We noted that there was no evidence of review on any of the three reconciliations.
WNC exceeded the maximum spending for non-instructional expenditures as follows:
Program Allowable Non-Instructional % Actual Non-Instructional % Questioned Costs
IEL and Civics 10.00% 16.84% $17,308
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend CSN and WNC enhance internal controls to ensure non-instructional costs do not exceed the maximum proportional limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Views of Responsible Officials: The College of Southern Nevada agrees with this finding. Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through the State of Nevada as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Adult Education – Basic Grants to States, 84.002
Earmarking
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.002 for WNC and CSN on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
Section 121(b)(1)(A) of WIOA provides that eligible providers must use at least 95 percent of the funds received from the state eligible agency to carry out adult education and literacy activities unless a lower limit has been agreed to by the state eligible agency. Eligible providers may use up to five percent of their funds for noninstructional costs, including planning, administration, professional development, providing services in alignment with the local workforce development plan and fulfilling certain one-stop partner responsibilities.
The state eligible agency agreed to lower adult education and literacy limits and higher maximum noninstructional limits for the College of Southern Nevada and Western Nevada College as follows:
o College of Southern Nevada
Basic Instruction: Instructional – 77.6% / Non-instructional 22.40%
Integrated English Literacy and Civics Instruction: Instructional – 88% / Non-instructional 12%
o Western Nevada College
Basic Instruction: Instructional – 74.83% / Non-instructional 15.27%
Integrated English Literacy and Civics Instruction: Instructional – 90% / Non-instructional 10%
Condition: There was no evidence of reviewing budget to actual expenditures to ensure compliance with the earmarking requirement. In addition, spending on non-instructional costs exceeded the maximum limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Cause: The College of Southern Nevada (CSN) and Western Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure non-instructional costs did not exceed the maximum proportional limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Effect: Administrative non-instructional costs exceeded the allowable amount and may subsequently exceed the allowable amount and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 12 monthly budget to actual expense reconciliations out of a population of 48 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. In addition, the instructional earmark was tested as a whole for each applicable institution.
The following errors were noted by each institution:
College of Southern Nevada
CSN exceeded the maximum spending for non-instructional expenditures as follows:
Program Allowable Non-Instructional % Actual Non-Instructional % Questioned Costs
Basic 22.40% 22.77% $6,363
Western Nevada College
Three monthly budget to actual expense reconciliations were applicable to WNC. We noted that there was no evidence of review on any of the three reconciliations.
WNC exceeded the maximum spending for non-instructional expenditures as follows:
Program Allowable Non-Instructional % Actual Non-Instructional % Questioned Costs
IEL and Civics 10.00% 16.84% $17,308
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend CSN and WNC enhance internal controls to ensure non-instructional costs do not exceed the maximum proportional limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Views of Responsible Officials: The College of Southern Nevada agrees with this finding. Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through the State of Nevada as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Adult Education – Basic Grants to States, 84.002
Earmarking
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.002 for WNC and CSN on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
Section 121(b)(1)(A) of WIOA provides that eligible providers must use at least 95 percent of the funds received from the state eligible agency to carry out adult education and literacy activities unless a lower limit has been agreed to by the state eligible agency. Eligible providers may use up to five percent of their funds for noninstructional costs, including planning, administration, professional development, providing services in alignment with the local workforce development plan and fulfilling certain one-stop partner responsibilities.
The state eligible agency agreed to lower adult education and literacy limits and higher maximum noninstructional limits for the College of Southern Nevada and Western Nevada College as follows:
o College of Southern Nevada
Basic Instruction: Instructional – 77.6% / Non-instructional 22.40%
Integrated English Literacy and Civics Instruction: Instructional – 88% / Non-instructional 12%
o Western Nevada College
Basic Instruction: Instructional – 74.83% / Non-instructional 15.27%
Integrated English Literacy and Civics Instruction: Instructional – 90% / Non-instructional 10%
Condition: There was no evidence of reviewing budget to actual expenditures to ensure compliance with the earmarking requirement. In addition, spending on non-instructional costs exceeded the maximum limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Cause: The College of Southern Nevada (CSN) and Western Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure non-instructional costs did not exceed the maximum proportional limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Effect: Administrative non-instructional costs exceeded the allowable amount and may subsequently exceed the allowable amount and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 12 monthly budget to actual expense reconciliations out of a population of 48 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. In addition, the instructional earmark was tested as a whole for each applicable institution.
The following errors were noted by each institution:
College of Southern Nevada
CSN exceeded the maximum spending for non-instructional expenditures as follows:
Program Allowable Non-Instructional % Actual Non-Instructional % Questioned Costs
Basic 22.40% 22.77% $6,363
Western Nevada College
Three monthly budget to actual expense reconciliations were applicable to WNC. We noted that there was no evidence of review on any of the three reconciliations.
WNC exceeded the maximum spending for non-instructional expenditures as follows:
Program Allowable Non-Instructional % Actual Non-Instructional % Questioned Costs
IEL and Civics 10.00% 16.84% $17,308
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend CSN and WNC enhance internal controls to ensure non-instructional costs do not exceed the maximum proportional limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Views of Responsible Officials: The College of Southern Nevada agrees with this finding. Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through the State of Nevada as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Adult Education – Basic Grants to States, 84.002
Earmarking
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.002 for WNC and CSN on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
Section 121(b)(1)(A) of WIOA provides that eligible providers must use at least 95 percent of the funds received from the state eligible agency to carry out adult education and literacy activities unless a lower limit has been agreed to by the state eligible agency. Eligible providers may use up to five percent of their funds for noninstructional costs, including planning, administration, professional development, providing services in alignment with the local workforce development plan and fulfilling certain one-stop partner responsibilities.
The state eligible agency agreed to lower adult education and literacy limits and higher maximum noninstructional limits for the College of Southern Nevada and Western Nevada College as follows:
o College of Southern Nevada
Basic Instruction: Instructional – 77.6% / Non-instructional 22.40%
Integrated English Literacy and Civics Instruction: Instructional – 88% / Non-instructional 12%
o Western Nevada College
Basic Instruction: Instructional – 74.83% / Non-instructional 15.27%
Integrated English Literacy and Civics Instruction: Instructional – 90% / Non-instructional 10%
Condition: There was no evidence of reviewing budget to actual expenditures to ensure compliance with the earmarking requirement. In addition, spending on non-instructional costs exceeded the maximum limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Cause: The College of Southern Nevada (CSN) and Western Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure non-instructional costs did not exceed the maximum proportional limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Effect: Administrative non-instructional costs exceeded the allowable amount and may subsequently exceed the allowable amount and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 12 monthly budget to actual expense reconciliations out of a population of 48 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. In addition, the instructional earmark was tested as a whole for each applicable institution.
The following errors were noted by each institution:
College of Southern Nevada
CSN exceeded the maximum spending for non-instructional expenditures as follows:
Program Allowable Non-Instructional % Actual Non-Instructional % Questioned Costs
Basic 22.40% 22.77% $6,363
Western Nevada College
Three monthly budget to actual expense reconciliations were applicable to WNC. We noted that there was no evidence of review on any of the three reconciliations.
WNC exceeded the maximum spending for non-instructional expenditures as follows:
Program Allowable Non-Instructional % Actual Non-Instructional % Questioned Costs
IEL and Civics 10.00% 16.84% $17,308
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend CSN and WNC enhance internal controls to ensure non-instructional costs do not exceed the maximum proportional limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Views of Responsible Officials: The College of Southern Nevada agrees with this finding. Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through the State of Nevada as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Adult Education – Basic Grants to States, 84.002
Earmarking
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.002 for WNC and CSN on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
Section 121(b)(1)(A) of WIOA provides that eligible providers must use at least 95 percent of the funds received from the state eligible agency to carry out adult education and literacy activities unless a lower limit has been agreed to by the state eligible agency. Eligible providers may use up to five percent of their funds for noninstructional costs, including planning, administration, professional development, providing services in alignment with the local workforce development plan and fulfilling certain one-stop partner responsibilities.
The state eligible agency agreed to lower adult education and literacy limits and higher maximum noninstructional limits for the College of Southern Nevada and Western Nevada College as follows:
o College of Southern Nevada
Basic Instruction: Instructional – 77.6% / Non-instructional 22.40%
Integrated English Literacy and Civics Instruction: Instructional – 88% / Non-instructional 12%
o Western Nevada College
Basic Instruction: Instructional – 74.83% / Non-instructional 15.27%
Integrated English Literacy and Civics Instruction: Instructional – 90% / Non-instructional 10%
Condition: There was no evidence of reviewing budget to actual expenditures to ensure compliance with the earmarking requirement. In addition, spending on non-instructional costs exceeded the maximum limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Cause: The College of Southern Nevada (CSN) and Western Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure non-instructional costs did not exceed the maximum proportional limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Effect: Administrative non-instructional costs exceeded the allowable amount and may subsequently exceed the allowable amount and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 12 monthly budget to actual expense reconciliations out of a population of 48 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. In addition, the instructional earmark was tested as a whole for each applicable institution.
The following errors were noted by each institution:
College of Southern Nevada
CSN exceeded the maximum spending for non-instructional expenditures as follows:
Program Allowable Non-Instructional % Actual Non-Instructional % Questioned Costs
Basic 22.40% 22.77% $6,363
Western Nevada College
Three monthly budget to actual expense reconciliations were applicable to WNC. We noted that there was no evidence of review on any of the three reconciliations.
WNC exceeded the maximum spending for non-instructional expenditures as follows:
Program Allowable Non-Instructional % Actual Non-Instructional % Questioned Costs
IEL and Civics 10.00% 16.84% $17,308
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend CSN and WNC enhance internal controls to ensure non-instructional costs do not exceed the maximum proportional limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Views of Responsible Officials: The College of Southern Nevada agrees with this finding. Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through the State of Nevada as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Adult Education – Basic Grants to States, 84.002
Earmarking
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.002 for WNC and CSN on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
Section 121(b)(1)(A) of WIOA provides that eligible providers must use at least 95 percent of the funds received from the state eligible agency to carry out adult education and literacy activities unless a lower limit has been agreed to by the state eligible agency. Eligible providers may use up to five percent of their funds for noninstructional costs, including planning, administration, professional development, providing services in alignment with the local workforce development plan and fulfilling certain one-stop partner responsibilities.
The state eligible agency agreed to lower adult education and literacy limits and higher maximum noninstructional limits for the College of Southern Nevada and Western Nevada College as follows:
o College of Southern Nevada
Basic Instruction: Instructional – 77.6% / Non-instructional 22.40%
Integrated English Literacy and Civics Instruction: Instructional – 88% / Non-instructional 12%
o Western Nevada College
Basic Instruction: Instructional – 74.83% / Non-instructional 15.27%
Integrated English Literacy and Civics Instruction: Instructional – 90% / Non-instructional 10%
Condition: There was no evidence of reviewing budget to actual expenditures to ensure compliance with the earmarking requirement. In addition, spending on non-instructional costs exceeded the maximum limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Cause: The College of Southern Nevada (CSN) and Western Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure non-instructional costs did not exceed the maximum proportional limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Effect: Administrative non-instructional costs exceeded the allowable amount and may subsequently exceed the allowable amount and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 12 monthly budget to actual expense reconciliations out of a population of 48 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. In addition, the instructional earmark was tested as a whole for each applicable institution.
The following errors were noted by each institution:
College of Southern Nevada
CSN exceeded the maximum spending for non-instructional expenditures as follows:
Program Allowable Non-Instructional % Actual Non-Instructional % Questioned Costs
Basic 22.40% 22.77% $6,363
Western Nevada College
Three monthly budget to actual expense reconciliations were applicable to WNC. We noted that there was no evidence of review on any of the three reconciliations.
WNC exceeded the maximum spending for non-instructional expenditures as follows:
Program Allowable Non-Instructional % Actual Non-Instructional % Questioned Costs
IEL and Civics 10.00% 16.84% $17,308
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend CSN and WNC enhance internal controls to ensure non-instructional costs do not exceed the maximum proportional limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Views of Responsible Officials: The College of Southern Nevada agrees with this finding. Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through the State of Nevada as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Adult Education – Basic Grants to States, 84.002
Earmarking
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.002 for WNC and CSN on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
Section 121(b)(1)(A) of WIOA provides that eligible providers must use at least 95 percent of the funds received from the state eligible agency to carry out adult education and literacy activities unless a lower limit has been agreed to by the state eligible agency. Eligible providers may use up to five percent of their funds for noninstructional costs, including planning, administration, professional development, providing services in alignment with the local workforce development plan and fulfilling certain one-stop partner responsibilities.
The state eligible agency agreed to lower adult education and literacy limits and higher maximum noninstructional limits for the College of Southern Nevada and Western Nevada College as follows:
o College of Southern Nevada
Basic Instruction: Instructional – 77.6% / Non-instructional 22.40%
Integrated English Literacy and Civics Instruction: Instructional – 88% / Non-instructional 12%
o Western Nevada College
Basic Instruction: Instructional – 74.83% / Non-instructional 15.27%
Integrated English Literacy and Civics Instruction: Instructional – 90% / Non-instructional 10%
Condition: There was no evidence of reviewing budget to actual expenditures to ensure compliance with the earmarking requirement. In addition, spending on non-instructional costs exceeded the maximum limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Cause: The College of Southern Nevada (CSN) and Western Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure non-instructional costs did not exceed the maximum proportional limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Effect: Administrative non-instructional costs exceeded the allowable amount and may subsequently exceed the allowable amount and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 12 monthly budget to actual expense reconciliations out of a population of 48 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. In addition, the instructional earmark was tested as a whole for each applicable institution.
The following errors were noted by each institution:
College of Southern Nevada
CSN exceeded the maximum spending for non-instructional expenditures as follows:
Program Allowable Non-Instructional % Actual Non-Instructional % Questioned Costs
Basic 22.40% 22.77% $6,363
Western Nevada College
Three monthly budget to actual expense reconciliations were applicable to WNC. We noted that there was no evidence of review on any of the three reconciliations.
WNC exceeded the maximum spending for non-instructional expenditures as follows:
Program Allowable Non-Instructional % Actual Non-Instructional % Questioned Costs
IEL and Civics 10.00% 16.84% $17,308
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend CSN and WNC enhance internal controls to ensure non-instructional costs do not exceed the maximum proportional limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Views of Responsible Officials: The College of Southern Nevada agrees with this finding. Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Disbursements to or on Behalf of Students
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 668.164(h) states that a Title IV credit balance occurs whenever the amount of Title IV program funds credited to a student's ledger account for a payment period exceeds the amount assessed the student for allowable charges associated with that payment period. A Title IV credit balance must be paid directly to the student or parent as soon as possible, but no later than (i) Fourteen (14) days after the balance occurred if the credit balance occurred after the first day of class of a payment period; or (ii) Fourteen (14) days after the first day of class of a payment period if the credit balance occurred on or before the first day of class of that payment period.
Condition: Credit balances were not remitted timely.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure credit balances were remitted timely after a hold had been placed on the student’s account.
Effect: Students do not receive their money timely.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,589 students who had Title IV disbursements was selected for testing. One student had a credit balance that was generated for their Spring 2023 term and had not cashed the check. A hold was placed on the student’s account until the student eventually cashed the check. However, the hold was not removed and the credit balance from the Fall 2023 term was not removed until April 2024. Therefore, the refund was 218 days after the credit balance occurred (204 days late).
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure credit balances are remitted timely after a hold has been placed on a student’s account.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Disbursements to or on Behalf of Students
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 668.164(h) states that a Title IV credit balance occurs whenever the amount of Title IV program funds credited to a student's ledger account for a payment period exceeds the amount assessed the student for allowable charges associated with that payment period. A Title IV credit balance must be paid directly to the student or parent as soon as possible, but no later than (i) Fourteen (14) days after the balance occurred if the credit balance occurred after the first day of class of a payment period; or (ii) Fourteen (14) days after the first day of class of a payment period if the credit balance occurred on or before the first day of class of that payment period.
Condition: Credit balances were not remitted timely.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure credit balances were remitted timely after a hold had been placed on the student’s account.
Effect: Students do not receive their money timely.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,589 students who had Title IV disbursements was selected for testing. One student had a credit balance that was generated for their Spring 2023 term and had not cashed the check. A hold was placed on the student’s account until the student eventually cashed the check. However, the hold was not removed and the credit balance from the Fall 2023 term was not removed until April 2024. Therefore, the refund was 218 days after the credit balance occurred (204 days late).
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure credit balances are remitted timely after a hold has been placed on a student’s account.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Disbursements to or on Behalf of Students
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 668.164(h) states that a Title IV credit balance occurs whenever the amount of Title IV program funds credited to a student's ledger account for a payment period exceeds the amount assessed the student for allowable charges associated with that payment period. A Title IV credit balance must be paid directly to the student or parent as soon as possible, but no later than (i) Fourteen (14) days after the balance occurred if the credit balance occurred after the first day of class of a payment period; or (ii) Fourteen (14) days after the first day of class of a payment period if the credit balance occurred on or before the first day of class of that payment period.
Condition: Credit balances were not remitted timely.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure credit balances were remitted timely after a hold had been placed on the student’s account.
Effect: Students do not receive their money timely.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,589 students who had Title IV disbursements was selected for testing. One student had a credit balance that was generated for their Spring 2023 term and had not cashed the check. A hold was placed on the student’s account until the student eventually cashed the check. However, the hold was not removed and the credit balance from the Fall 2023 term was not removed until April 2024. Therefore, the refund was 218 days after the credit balance occurred (204 days late).
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure credit balances are remitted timely after a hold has been placed on a student’s account.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Disbursements to or on Behalf of Students
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 668.164(h) states that a Title IV credit balance occurs whenever the amount of Title IV program funds credited to a student's ledger account for a payment period exceeds the amount assessed the student for allowable charges associated with that payment period. A Title IV credit balance must be paid directly to the student or parent as soon as possible, but no later than (i) Fourteen (14) days after the balance occurred if the credit balance occurred after the first day of class of a payment period; or (ii) Fourteen (14) days after the first day of class of a payment period if the credit balance occurred on or before the first day of class of that payment period.
Condition: Credit balances were not remitted timely.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure credit balances were remitted timely after a hold had been placed on the student’s account.
Effect: Students do not receive their money timely.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,589 students who had Title IV disbursements was selected for testing. One student had a credit balance that was generated for their Spring 2023 term and had not cashed the check. A hold was placed on the student’s account until the student eventually cashed the check. However, the hold was not removed and the credit balance from the Fall 2023 term was not removed until April 2024. Therefore, the refund was 218 days after the credit balance occurred (204 days late).
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure credit balances are remitted timely after a hold has been placed on a student’s account.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Return of Title IV (R2T4)
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for CSN, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: In accordance with 34 CFR 668.173(b) and 34 CFR 668.22(e), when a student ceases attendance during a payment period or period of enrollment, drops, takes a leave of absence, or never begins attendance, institutions are required to calculate the percentage of Title IV aid earned following the guidance of the calculation worksheets in Appendix to Volume 5 of the FSA Handbook. When a return of Title IV aid is required, an institution has 45 days (or 30 days for students that never began attendance) to return the funds to Ed.
Condition: There were instances where the calculation of returns was not calculated correctly or were not returned within the required allotted time.
Cause: The following institutions did not have adequate internal controls to ensure R2T4 was calculated correct, and funds returned within the required time:
o College of Southern Nevada (CSN)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: The U.S. Department of Education did not receive returns timely or accurately.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: We noted the following for each institution:
College of Southern Nevada
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,953 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $870 but should have been $1,180. The other return was calculated as $579 but should have been $381.
o Two of the returns were not timely. One was 12 days late and the other was 35 days late.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 857 student returns was selected for testing.
o One return was not calculated correctly. It was calculated as $2,270 but should have been $1,975.
o For one student who did not re-enroll in the Spring 2024 term, their Pell Grant was appropriately cancelled; however, the student’s Fall 2023 Pell Grant was also returned, even though the student had completed 100% of the term. Therefore, $1,555 was returned when it should not have been.
University of Nevada, Reno
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 421 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $2,443 but should have been $2,438. One return was calculated as $2,243 but should have been $2,235.
o Three of the returns were not timely. The three returns were 3 days, 4 days, and 10 days late, respectively.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: Yes, prior year finding 2023-003.
Recommendation: We recommend CSN, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure R2T4 is calculated correctly and timely. In particular, to enhance internal controls to ensure the appropriate days in the term are being used and that the appropriate amount of institution charges is used.
Views of Responsible Officials: The College of Southern Nevada agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Return of Title IV (R2T4)
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for CSN, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: In accordance with 34 CFR 668.173(b) and 34 CFR 668.22(e), when a student ceases attendance during a payment period or period of enrollment, drops, takes a leave of absence, or never begins attendance, institutions are required to calculate the percentage of Title IV aid earned following the guidance of the calculation worksheets in Appendix to Volume 5 of the FSA Handbook. When a return of Title IV aid is required, an institution has 45 days (or 30 days for students that never began attendance) to return the funds to Ed.
Condition: There were instances where the calculation of returns was not calculated correctly or were not returned within the required allotted time.
Cause: The following institutions did not have adequate internal controls to ensure R2T4 was calculated correct, and funds returned within the required time:
o College of Southern Nevada (CSN)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: The U.S. Department of Education did not receive returns timely or accurately.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: We noted the following for each institution:
College of Southern Nevada
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,953 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $870 but should have been $1,180. The other return was calculated as $579 but should have been $381.
o Two of the returns were not timely. One was 12 days late and the other was 35 days late.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 857 student returns was selected for testing.
o One return was not calculated correctly. It was calculated as $2,270 but should have been $1,975.
o For one student who did not re-enroll in the Spring 2024 term, their Pell Grant was appropriately cancelled; however, the student’s Fall 2023 Pell Grant was also returned, even though the student had completed 100% of the term. Therefore, $1,555 was returned when it should not have been.
University of Nevada, Reno
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 421 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $2,443 but should have been $2,438. One return was calculated as $2,243 but should have been $2,235.
o Three of the returns were not timely. The three returns were 3 days, 4 days, and 10 days late, respectively.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: Yes, prior year finding 2023-003.
Recommendation: We recommend CSN, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure R2T4 is calculated correctly and timely. In particular, to enhance internal controls to ensure the appropriate days in the term are being used and that the appropriate amount of institution charges is used.
Views of Responsible Officials: The College of Southern Nevada agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Return of Title IV (R2T4)
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for CSN, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: In accordance with 34 CFR 668.173(b) and 34 CFR 668.22(e), when a student ceases attendance during a payment period or period of enrollment, drops, takes a leave of absence, or never begins attendance, institutions are required to calculate the percentage of Title IV aid earned following the guidance of the calculation worksheets in Appendix to Volume 5 of the FSA Handbook. When a return of Title IV aid is required, an institution has 45 days (or 30 days for students that never began attendance) to return the funds to Ed.
Condition: There were instances where the calculation of returns was not calculated correctly or were not returned within the required allotted time.
Cause: The following institutions did not have adequate internal controls to ensure R2T4 was calculated correct, and funds returned within the required time:
o College of Southern Nevada (CSN)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: The U.S. Department of Education did not receive returns timely or accurately.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: We noted the following for each institution:
College of Southern Nevada
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,953 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $870 but should have been $1,180. The other return was calculated as $579 but should have been $381.
o Two of the returns were not timely. One was 12 days late and the other was 35 days late.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 857 student returns was selected for testing.
o One return was not calculated correctly. It was calculated as $2,270 but should have been $1,975.
o For one student who did not re-enroll in the Spring 2024 term, their Pell Grant was appropriately cancelled; however, the student’s Fall 2023 Pell Grant was also returned, even though the student had completed 100% of the term. Therefore, $1,555 was returned when it should not have been.
University of Nevada, Reno
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 421 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $2,443 but should have been $2,438. One return was calculated as $2,243 but should have been $2,235.
o Three of the returns were not timely. The three returns were 3 days, 4 days, and 10 days late, respectively.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: Yes, prior year finding 2023-003.
Recommendation: We recommend CSN, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure R2T4 is calculated correctly and timely. In particular, to enhance internal controls to ensure the appropriate days in the term are being used and that the appropriate amount of institution charges is used.
Views of Responsible Officials: The College of Southern Nevada agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Return of Title IV (R2T4)
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for CSN, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: In accordance with 34 CFR 668.173(b) and 34 CFR 668.22(e), when a student ceases attendance during a payment period or period of enrollment, drops, takes a leave of absence, or never begins attendance, institutions are required to calculate the percentage of Title IV aid earned following the guidance of the calculation worksheets in Appendix to Volume 5 of the FSA Handbook. When a return of Title IV aid is required, an institution has 45 days (or 30 days for students that never began attendance) to return the funds to Ed.
Condition: There were instances where the calculation of returns was not calculated correctly or were not returned within the required allotted time.
Cause: The following institutions did not have adequate internal controls to ensure R2T4 was calculated correct, and funds returned within the required time:
o College of Southern Nevada (CSN)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: The U.S. Department of Education did not receive returns timely or accurately.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: We noted the following for each institution:
College of Southern Nevada
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,953 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $870 but should have been $1,180. The other return was calculated as $579 but should have been $381.
o Two of the returns were not timely. One was 12 days late and the other was 35 days late.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 857 student returns was selected for testing.
o One return was not calculated correctly. It was calculated as $2,270 but should have been $1,975.
o For one student who did not re-enroll in the Spring 2024 term, their Pell Grant was appropriately cancelled; however, the student’s Fall 2023 Pell Grant was also returned, even though the student had completed 100% of the term. Therefore, $1,555 was returned when it should not have been.
University of Nevada, Reno
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 421 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $2,443 but should have been $2,438. One return was calculated as $2,243 but should have been $2,235.
o Three of the returns were not timely. The three returns were 3 days, 4 days, and 10 days late, respectively.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: Yes, prior year finding 2023-003.
Recommendation: We recommend CSN, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure R2T4 is calculated correctly and timely. In particular, to enhance internal controls to ensure the appropriate days in the term are being used and that the appropriate amount of institution charges is used.
Views of Responsible Officials: The College of Southern Nevada agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Enrollment Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for NSU on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 690.83(b)(2) and 34 CFR 685.309 states that institutions are responsible for timely and accurate reporting of a student’s enrollment status and changes in those enrollment statues, whether they report directly or via a third-party servicer. When an Institution is made aware of a change in a student’s enrollment status, the Institution has 60 days to update the change in enrollment status via NSLDS.
Condition: Change in enrollment status was not reported accurately or timely.
Cause: The Nevada State University (NSU) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status was correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, NSU did not have adequate internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Effect: Non-timely and inaccurate reporting to the NSLDS could potentially impact future eligibility determinations and repayment provisions.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 772 students who had a change in their enrollment status was selected for testing. We noted four student’s enrollment status changes were not reported accurately. In addition, we noted 20 enrollment status changes were not reported timely. These twenty instances ranged from 2 days late to 62 days late with an average of 31 days late.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status is correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, we recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Nevada State University agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Enrollment Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for NSU on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 690.83(b)(2) and 34 CFR 685.309 states that institutions are responsible for timely and accurate reporting of a student’s enrollment status and changes in those enrollment statues, whether they report directly or via a third-party servicer. When an Institution is made aware of a change in a student’s enrollment status, the Institution has 60 days to update the change in enrollment status via NSLDS.
Condition: Change in enrollment status was not reported accurately or timely.
Cause: The Nevada State University (NSU) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status was correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, NSU did not have adequate internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Effect: Non-timely and inaccurate reporting to the NSLDS could potentially impact future eligibility determinations and repayment provisions.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 772 students who had a change in their enrollment status was selected for testing. We noted four student’s enrollment status changes were not reported accurately. In addition, we noted 20 enrollment status changes were not reported timely. These twenty instances ranged from 2 days late to 62 days late with an average of 31 days late.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status is correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, we recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Nevada State University agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Enrollment Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for NSU on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 690.83(b)(2) and 34 CFR 685.309 states that institutions are responsible for timely and accurate reporting of a student’s enrollment status and changes in those enrollment statues, whether they report directly or via a third-party servicer. When an Institution is made aware of a change in a student’s enrollment status, the Institution has 60 days to update the change in enrollment status via NSLDS.
Condition: Change in enrollment status was not reported accurately or timely.
Cause: The Nevada State University (NSU) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status was correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, NSU did not have adequate internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Effect: Non-timely and inaccurate reporting to the NSLDS could potentially impact future eligibility determinations and repayment provisions.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 772 students who had a change in their enrollment status was selected for testing. We noted four student’s enrollment status changes were not reported accurately. In addition, we noted 20 enrollment status changes were not reported timely. These twenty instances ranged from 2 days late to 62 days late with an average of 31 days late.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status is correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, we recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Nevada State University agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Enrollment Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for NSU on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 690.83(b)(2) and 34 CFR 685.309 states that institutions are responsible for timely and accurate reporting of a student’s enrollment status and changes in those enrollment statues, whether they report directly or via a third-party servicer. When an Institution is made aware of a change in a student’s enrollment status, the Institution has 60 days to update the change in enrollment status via NSLDS.
Condition: Change in enrollment status was not reported accurately or timely.
Cause: The Nevada State University (NSU) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status was correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, NSU did not have adequate internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Effect: Non-timely and inaccurate reporting to the NSLDS could potentially impact future eligibility determinations and repayment provisions.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 772 students who had a change in their enrollment status was selected for testing. We noted four student’s enrollment status changes were not reported accurately. In addition, we noted 20 enrollment status changes were not reported timely. These twenty instances ranged from 2 days late to 62 days late with an average of 31 days late.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status is correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, we recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Nevada State University agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through Utah State University as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, 84.116
Eligibility
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.116 for UNR and UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
The grant terms and conditions specify various eligibility requirements that beneficiaries must meet to participate in the program, such as minimum GPA, academic status, degree seeking opportunities, and other demographic information.
Condition: A documented review of eligibility determinations by an individual independent of the preparer (segregation of duties) was not in place.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for a documented review of eligibility determinations by an individual independent of the initial determination.
Effect: An incorrect eligibility determination may occur and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 eligibility determinations out of a population of 358 was selected for testing across the Nevada System of Higher Education.
The following errors were noted by each institution:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
UNLV had 23 eligibility determinations selected for testing of the sample of 60. We noted there was no evidence that eligibility determinations were reviewed by an individual independent of the determination for all 23 determinations.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 19 eligibility determinations selected for testing of the sample of 60. We noted there was no evidence that eligibility determinations were reviewed by an individual independent of the determination for all 19 determinations.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to provide for a documented review of eligibility determinations by an individual independent of the initial determination.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through Utah State University as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, 84.116
Eligibility
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.116 for UNR and UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
The grant terms and conditions specify various eligibility requirements that beneficiaries must meet to participate in the program, such as minimum GPA, academic status, degree seeking opportunities, and other demographic information.
Condition: A documented review of eligibility determinations by an individual independent of the preparer (segregation of duties) was not in place.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for a documented review of eligibility determinations by an individual independent of the initial determination.
Effect: An incorrect eligibility determination may occur and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 eligibility determinations out of a population of 358 was selected for testing across the Nevada System of Higher Education.
The following errors were noted by each institution:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
UNLV had 23 eligibility determinations selected for testing of the sample of 60. We noted there was no evidence that eligibility determinations were reviewed by an individual independent of the determination for all 23 determinations.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 19 eligibility determinations selected for testing of the sample of 60. We noted there was no evidence that eligibility determinations were reviewed by an individual independent of the determination for all 19 determinations.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to provide for a documented review of eligibility determinations by an individual independent of the initial determination.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Disbursements to or on Behalf of Students
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 668.164(h) states that a Title IV credit balance occurs whenever the amount of Title IV program funds credited to a student's ledger account for a payment period exceeds the amount assessed the student for allowable charges associated with that payment period. A Title IV credit balance must be paid directly to the student or parent as soon as possible, but no later than (i) Fourteen (14) days after the balance occurred if the credit balance occurred after the first day of class of a payment period; or (ii) Fourteen (14) days after the first day of class of a payment period if the credit balance occurred on or before the first day of class of that payment period.
Condition: Credit balances were not remitted timely.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure credit balances were remitted timely after a hold had been placed on the student’s account.
Effect: Students do not receive their money timely.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,589 students who had Title IV disbursements was selected for testing. One student had a credit balance that was generated for their Spring 2023 term and had not cashed the check. A hold was placed on the student’s account until the student eventually cashed the check. However, the hold was not removed and the credit balance from the Fall 2023 term was not removed until April 2024. Therefore, the refund was 218 days after the credit balance occurred (204 days late).
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure credit balances are remitted timely after a hold has been placed on a student’s account.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Disbursements to or on Behalf of Students
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 668.164(h) states that a Title IV credit balance occurs whenever the amount of Title IV program funds credited to a student's ledger account for a payment period exceeds the amount assessed the student for allowable charges associated with that payment period. A Title IV credit balance must be paid directly to the student or parent as soon as possible, but no later than (i) Fourteen (14) days after the balance occurred if the credit balance occurred after the first day of class of a payment period; or (ii) Fourteen (14) days after the first day of class of a payment period if the credit balance occurred on or before the first day of class of that payment period.
Condition: Credit balances were not remitted timely.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure credit balances were remitted timely after a hold had been placed on the student’s account.
Effect: Students do not receive their money timely.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,589 students who had Title IV disbursements was selected for testing. One student had a credit balance that was generated for their Spring 2023 term and had not cashed the check. A hold was placed on the student’s account until the student eventually cashed the check. However, the hold was not removed and the credit balance from the Fall 2023 term was not removed until April 2024. Therefore, the refund was 218 days after the credit balance occurred (204 days late).
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure credit balances are remitted timely after a hold has been placed on a student’s account.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Disbursements to or on Behalf of Students
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 668.164(h) states that a Title IV credit balance occurs whenever the amount of Title IV program funds credited to a student's ledger account for a payment period exceeds the amount assessed the student for allowable charges associated with that payment period. A Title IV credit balance must be paid directly to the student or parent as soon as possible, but no later than (i) Fourteen (14) days after the balance occurred if the credit balance occurred after the first day of class of a payment period; or (ii) Fourteen (14) days after the first day of class of a payment period if the credit balance occurred on or before the first day of class of that payment period.
Condition: Credit balances were not remitted timely.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure credit balances were remitted timely after a hold had been placed on the student’s account.
Effect: Students do not receive their money timely.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,589 students who had Title IV disbursements was selected for testing. One student had a credit balance that was generated for their Spring 2023 term and had not cashed the check. A hold was placed on the student’s account until the student eventually cashed the check. However, the hold was not removed and the credit balance from the Fall 2023 term was not removed until April 2024. Therefore, the refund was 218 days after the credit balance occurred (204 days late).
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure credit balances are remitted timely after a hold has been placed on a student’s account.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Disbursements to or on Behalf of Students
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 668.164(h) states that a Title IV credit balance occurs whenever the amount of Title IV program funds credited to a student's ledger account for a payment period exceeds the amount assessed the student for allowable charges associated with that payment period. A Title IV credit balance must be paid directly to the student or parent as soon as possible, but no later than (i) Fourteen (14) days after the balance occurred if the credit balance occurred after the first day of class of a payment period; or (ii) Fourteen (14) days after the first day of class of a payment period if the credit balance occurred on or before the first day of class of that payment period.
Condition: Credit balances were not remitted timely.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure credit balances were remitted timely after a hold had been placed on the student’s account.
Effect: Students do not receive their money timely.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,589 students who had Title IV disbursements was selected for testing. One student had a credit balance that was generated for their Spring 2023 term and had not cashed the check. A hold was placed on the student’s account until the student eventually cashed the check. However, the hold was not removed and the credit balance from the Fall 2023 term was not removed until April 2024. Therefore, the refund was 218 days after the credit balance occurred (204 days late).
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure credit balances are remitted timely after a hold has been placed on a student’s account.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Disbursements to or on Behalf of Students
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 668.164(h) states that a Title IV credit balance occurs whenever the amount of Title IV program funds credited to a student's ledger account for a payment period exceeds the amount assessed the student for allowable charges associated with that payment period. A Title IV credit balance must be paid directly to the student or parent as soon as possible, but no later than (i) Fourteen (14) days after the balance occurred if the credit balance occurred after the first day of class of a payment period; or (ii) Fourteen (14) days after the first day of class of a payment period if the credit balance occurred on or before the first day of class of that payment period.
Condition: Credit balances were not remitted timely.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure credit balances were remitted timely after a hold had been placed on the student’s account.
Effect: Students do not receive their money timely.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,589 students who had Title IV disbursements was selected for testing. One student had a credit balance that was generated for their Spring 2023 term and had not cashed the check. A hold was placed on the student’s account until the student eventually cashed the check. However, the hold was not removed and the credit balance from the Fall 2023 term was not removed until April 2024. Therefore, the refund was 218 days after the credit balance occurred (204 days late).
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure credit balances are remitted timely after a hold has been placed on a student’s account.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Return of Title IV (R2T4)
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for CSN, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: In accordance with 34 CFR 668.173(b) and 34 CFR 668.22(e), when a student ceases attendance during a payment period or period of enrollment, drops, takes a leave of absence, or never begins attendance, institutions are required to calculate the percentage of Title IV aid earned following the guidance of the calculation worksheets in Appendix to Volume 5 of the FSA Handbook. When a return of Title IV aid is required, an institution has 45 days (or 30 days for students that never began attendance) to return the funds to Ed.
Condition: There were instances where the calculation of returns was not calculated correctly or were not returned within the required allotted time.
Cause: The following institutions did not have adequate internal controls to ensure R2T4 was calculated correct, and funds returned within the required time:
o College of Southern Nevada (CSN)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: The U.S. Department of Education did not receive returns timely or accurately.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: We noted the following for each institution:
College of Southern Nevada
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,953 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $870 but should have been $1,180. The other return was calculated as $579 but should have been $381.
o Two of the returns were not timely. One was 12 days late and the other was 35 days late.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 857 student returns was selected for testing.
o One return was not calculated correctly. It was calculated as $2,270 but should have been $1,975.
o For one student who did not re-enroll in the Spring 2024 term, their Pell Grant was appropriately cancelled; however, the student’s Fall 2023 Pell Grant was also returned, even though the student had completed 100% of the term. Therefore, $1,555 was returned when it should not have been.
University of Nevada, Reno
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 421 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $2,443 but should have been $2,438. One return was calculated as $2,243 but should have been $2,235.
o Three of the returns were not timely. The three returns were 3 days, 4 days, and 10 days late, respectively.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: Yes, prior year finding 2023-003.
Recommendation: We recommend CSN, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure R2T4 is calculated correctly and timely. In particular, to enhance internal controls to ensure the appropriate days in the term are being used and that the appropriate amount of institution charges is used.
Views of Responsible Officials: The College of Southern Nevada agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Return of Title IV (R2T4)
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for CSN, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: In accordance with 34 CFR 668.173(b) and 34 CFR 668.22(e), when a student ceases attendance during a payment period or period of enrollment, drops, takes a leave of absence, or never begins attendance, institutions are required to calculate the percentage of Title IV aid earned following the guidance of the calculation worksheets in Appendix to Volume 5 of the FSA Handbook. When a return of Title IV aid is required, an institution has 45 days (or 30 days for students that never began attendance) to return the funds to Ed.
Condition: There were instances where the calculation of returns was not calculated correctly or were not returned within the required allotted time.
Cause: The following institutions did not have adequate internal controls to ensure R2T4 was calculated correct, and funds returned within the required time:
o College of Southern Nevada (CSN)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: The U.S. Department of Education did not receive returns timely or accurately.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: We noted the following for each institution:
College of Southern Nevada
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,953 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $870 but should have been $1,180. The other return was calculated as $579 but should have been $381.
o Two of the returns were not timely. One was 12 days late and the other was 35 days late.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 857 student returns was selected for testing.
o One return was not calculated correctly. It was calculated as $2,270 but should have been $1,975.
o For one student who did not re-enroll in the Spring 2024 term, their Pell Grant was appropriately cancelled; however, the student’s Fall 2023 Pell Grant was also returned, even though the student had completed 100% of the term. Therefore, $1,555 was returned when it should not have been.
University of Nevada, Reno
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 421 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $2,443 but should have been $2,438. One return was calculated as $2,243 but should have been $2,235.
o Three of the returns were not timely. The three returns were 3 days, 4 days, and 10 days late, respectively.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: Yes, prior year finding 2023-003.
Recommendation: We recommend CSN, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure R2T4 is calculated correctly and timely. In particular, to enhance internal controls to ensure the appropriate days in the term are being used and that the appropriate amount of institution charges is used.
Views of Responsible Officials: The College of Southern Nevada agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Return of Title IV (R2T4)
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for CSN, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: In accordance with 34 CFR 668.173(b) and 34 CFR 668.22(e), when a student ceases attendance during a payment period or period of enrollment, drops, takes a leave of absence, or never begins attendance, institutions are required to calculate the percentage of Title IV aid earned following the guidance of the calculation worksheets in Appendix to Volume 5 of the FSA Handbook. When a return of Title IV aid is required, an institution has 45 days (or 30 days for students that never began attendance) to return the funds to Ed.
Condition: There were instances where the calculation of returns was not calculated correctly or were not returned within the required allotted time.
Cause: The following institutions did not have adequate internal controls to ensure R2T4 was calculated correct, and funds returned within the required time:
o College of Southern Nevada (CSN)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: The U.S. Department of Education did not receive returns timely or accurately.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: We noted the following for each institution:
College of Southern Nevada
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,953 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $870 but should have been $1,180. The other return was calculated as $579 but should have been $381.
o Two of the returns were not timely. One was 12 days late and the other was 35 days late.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 857 student returns was selected for testing.
o One return was not calculated correctly. It was calculated as $2,270 but should have been $1,975.
o For one student who did not re-enroll in the Spring 2024 term, their Pell Grant was appropriately cancelled; however, the student’s Fall 2023 Pell Grant was also returned, even though the student had completed 100% of the term. Therefore, $1,555 was returned when it should not have been.
University of Nevada, Reno
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 421 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $2,443 but should have been $2,438. One return was calculated as $2,243 but should have been $2,235.
o Three of the returns were not timely. The three returns were 3 days, 4 days, and 10 days late, respectively.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: Yes, prior year finding 2023-003.
Recommendation: We recommend CSN, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure R2T4 is calculated correctly and timely. In particular, to enhance internal controls to ensure the appropriate days in the term are being used and that the appropriate amount of institution charges is used.
Views of Responsible Officials: The College of Southern Nevada agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Return of Title IV (R2T4)
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for CSN, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: In accordance with 34 CFR 668.173(b) and 34 CFR 668.22(e), when a student ceases attendance during a payment period or period of enrollment, drops, takes a leave of absence, or never begins attendance, institutions are required to calculate the percentage of Title IV aid earned following the guidance of the calculation worksheets in Appendix to Volume 5 of the FSA Handbook. When a return of Title IV aid is required, an institution has 45 days (or 30 days for students that never began attendance) to return the funds to Ed.
Condition: There were instances where the calculation of returns was not calculated correctly or were not returned within the required allotted time.
Cause: The following institutions did not have adequate internal controls to ensure R2T4 was calculated correct, and funds returned within the required time:
o College of Southern Nevada (CSN)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: The U.S. Department of Education did not receive returns timely or accurately.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: We noted the following for each institution:
College of Southern Nevada
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,953 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $870 but should have been $1,180. The other return was calculated as $579 but should have been $381.
o Two of the returns were not timely. One was 12 days late and the other was 35 days late.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 857 student returns was selected for testing.
o One return was not calculated correctly. It was calculated as $2,270 but should have been $1,975.
o For one student who did not re-enroll in the Spring 2024 term, their Pell Grant was appropriately cancelled; however, the student’s Fall 2023 Pell Grant was also returned, even though the student had completed 100% of the term. Therefore, $1,555 was returned when it should not have been.
University of Nevada, Reno
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 421 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $2,443 but should have been $2,438. One return was calculated as $2,243 but should have been $2,235.
o Three of the returns were not timely. The three returns were 3 days, 4 days, and 10 days late, respectively.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: Yes, prior year finding 2023-003.
Recommendation: We recommend CSN, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure R2T4 is calculated correctly and timely. In particular, to enhance internal controls to ensure the appropriate days in the term are being used and that the appropriate amount of institution charges is used.
Views of Responsible Officials: The College of Southern Nevada agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Return of Title IV (R2T4)
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for CSN, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: In accordance with 34 CFR 668.173(b) and 34 CFR 668.22(e), when a student ceases attendance during a payment period or period of enrollment, drops, takes a leave of absence, or never begins attendance, institutions are required to calculate the percentage of Title IV aid earned following the guidance of the calculation worksheets in Appendix to Volume 5 of the FSA Handbook. When a return of Title IV aid is required, an institution has 45 days (or 30 days for students that never began attendance) to return the funds to Ed.
Condition: There were instances where the calculation of returns was not calculated correctly or were not returned within the required allotted time.
Cause: The following institutions did not have adequate internal controls to ensure R2T4 was calculated correct, and funds returned within the required time:
o College of Southern Nevada (CSN)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: The U.S. Department of Education did not receive returns timely or accurately.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: We noted the following for each institution:
College of Southern Nevada
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,953 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $870 but should have been $1,180. The other return was calculated as $579 but should have been $381.
o Two of the returns were not timely. One was 12 days late and the other was 35 days late.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 857 student returns was selected for testing.
o One return was not calculated correctly. It was calculated as $2,270 but should have been $1,975.
o For one student who did not re-enroll in the Spring 2024 term, their Pell Grant was appropriately cancelled; however, the student’s Fall 2023 Pell Grant was also returned, even though the student had completed 100% of the term. Therefore, $1,555 was returned when it should not have been.
University of Nevada, Reno
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 421 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $2,443 but should have been $2,438. One return was calculated as $2,243 but should have been $2,235.
o Three of the returns were not timely. The three returns were 3 days, 4 days, and 10 days late, respectively.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: Yes, prior year finding 2023-003.
Recommendation: We recommend CSN, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure R2T4 is calculated correctly and timely. In particular, to enhance internal controls to ensure the appropriate days in the term are being used and that the appropriate amount of institution charges is used.
Views of Responsible Officials: The College of Southern Nevada agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Enrollment Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for NSU on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 690.83(b)(2) and 34 CFR 685.309 states that institutions are responsible for timely and accurate reporting of a student’s enrollment status and changes in those enrollment statues, whether they report directly or via a third-party servicer. When an Institution is made aware of a change in a student’s enrollment status, the Institution has 60 days to update the change in enrollment status via NSLDS.
Condition: Change in enrollment status was not reported accurately or timely.
Cause: The Nevada State University (NSU) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status was correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, NSU did not have adequate internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Effect: Non-timely and inaccurate reporting to the NSLDS could potentially impact future eligibility determinations and repayment provisions.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 772 students who had a change in their enrollment status was selected for testing. We noted four student’s enrollment status changes were not reported accurately. In addition, we noted 20 enrollment status changes were not reported timely. These twenty instances ranged from 2 days late to 62 days late with an average of 31 days late.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status is correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, we recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Nevada State University agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Enrollment Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for NSU on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 690.83(b)(2) and 34 CFR 685.309 states that institutions are responsible for timely and accurate reporting of a student’s enrollment status and changes in those enrollment statues, whether they report directly or via a third-party servicer. When an Institution is made aware of a change in a student’s enrollment status, the Institution has 60 days to update the change in enrollment status via NSLDS.
Condition: Change in enrollment status was not reported accurately or timely.
Cause: The Nevada State University (NSU) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status was correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, NSU did not have adequate internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Effect: Non-timely and inaccurate reporting to the NSLDS could potentially impact future eligibility determinations and repayment provisions.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 772 students who had a change in their enrollment status was selected for testing. We noted four student’s enrollment status changes were not reported accurately. In addition, we noted 20 enrollment status changes were not reported timely. These twenty instances ranged from 2 days late to 62 days late with an average of 31 days late.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status is correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, we recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Nevada State University agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Enrollment Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for NSU on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 690.83(b)(2) and 34 CFR 685.309 states that institutions are responsible for timely and accurate reporting of a student’s enrollment status and changes in those enrollment statues, whether they report directly or via a third-party servicer. When an Institution is made aware of a change in a student’s enrollment status, the Institution has 60 days to update the change in enrollment status via NSLDS.
Condition: Change in enrollment status was not reported accurately or timely.
Cause: The Nevada State University (NSU) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status was correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, NSU did not have adequate internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Effect: Non-timely and inaccurate reporting to the NSLDS could potentially impact future eligibility determinations and repayment provisions.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 772 students who had a change in their enrollment status was selected for testing. We noted four student’s enrollment status changes were not reported accurately. In addition, we noted 20 enrollment status changes were not reported timely. These twenty instances ranged from 2 days late to 62 days late with an average of 31 days late.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status is correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, we recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Nevada State University agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Enrollment Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for NSU on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 690.83(b)(2) and 34 CFR 685.309 states that institutions are responsible for timely and accurate reporting of a student’s enrollment status and changes in those enrollment statues, whether they report directly or via a third-party servicer. When an Institution is made aware of a change in a student’s enrollment status, the Institution has 60 days to update the change in enrollment status via NSLDS.
Condition: Change in enrollment status was not reported accurately or timely.
Cause: The Nevada State University (NSU) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status was correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, NSU did not have adequate internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Effect: Non-timely and inaccurate reporting to the NSLDS could potentially impact future eligibility determinations and repayment provisions.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 772 students who had a change in their enrollment status was selected for testing. We noted four student’s enrollment status changes were not reported accurately. In addition, we noted 20 enrollment status changes were not reported timely. These twenty instances ranged from 2 days late to 62 days late with an average of 31 days late.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status is correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, we recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Nevada State University agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Enrollment Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for NSU on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 690.83(b)(2) and 34 CFR 685.309 states that institutions are responsible for timely and accurate reporting of a student’s enrollment status and changes in those enrollment statues, whether they report directly or via a third-party servicer. When an Institution is made aware of a change in a student’s enrollment status, the Institution has 60 days to update the change in enrollment status via NSLDS.
Condition: Change in enrollment status was not reported accurately or timely.
Cause: The Nevada State University (NSU) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status was correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, NSU did not have adequate internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Effect: Non-timely and inaccurate reporting to the NSLDS could potentially impact future eligibility determinations and repayment provisions.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 772 students who had a change in their enrollment status was selected for testing. We noted four student’s enrollment status changes were not reported accurately. In addition, we noted 20 enrollment status changes were not reported timely. These twenty instances ranged from 2 days late to 62 days late with an average of 31 days late.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status is correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, we recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Nevada State University agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SP-2300023 and 2300026 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreements specified that the period of performance was to expire on June 30, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $81,075.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($189,351) out of a population of 1,032 ($2,372,376) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR payroll expenditures were 44 ($112,139) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $778 was charged to the grant and incurred in July 2023.
A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($32,118) out of a population of 538 ($242,467) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR goods and services expenditures were 49 ($25,743) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted four goods and services transactions totaling $413 were charged to the grant and incurred between July 2023 and December 2023.
Subsequently we reviewed a summary of expenditures on the two grant awards noted, and we noted $81,075 in expenditures charged to the grants that were incurred after June 30, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SP-2300023 and 2300026 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreements specified that the period of performance was to expire on June 30, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $81,075.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($189,351) out of a population of 1,032 ($2,372,376) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR payroll expenditures were 44 ($112,139) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $778 was charged to the grant and incurred in July 2023.
A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($32,118) out of a population of 538 ($242,467) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR goods and services expenditures were 49 ($25,743) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted four goods and services transactions totaling $413 were charged to the grant and incurred between July 2023 and December 2023.
Subsequently we reviewed a summary of expenditures on the two grant awards noted, and we noted $81,075 in expenditures charged to the grants that were incurred after June 30, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SP-2300023 and 2300026 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreements specified that the period of performance was to expire on June 30, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $81,075.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($189,351) out of a population of 1,032 ($2,372,376) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR payroll expenditures were 44 ($112,139) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $778 was charged to the grant and incurred in July 2023.
A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($32,118) out of a population of 538 ($242,467) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR goods and services expenditures were 49 ($25,743) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted four goods and services transactions totaling $413 were charged to the grant and incurred between July 2023 and December 2023.
Subsequently we reviewed a summary of expenditures on the two grant awards noted, and we noted $81,075 in expenditures charged to the grants that were incurred after June 30, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SP-2300023 and 2300026 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreements specified that the period of performance was to expire on June 30, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $81,075.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($189,351) out of a population of 1,032 ($2,372,376) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR payroll expenditures were 44 ($112,139) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $778 was charged to the grant and incurred in July 2023.
A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($32,118) out of a population of 538 ($242,467) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR goods and services expenditures were 49 ($25,743) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted four goods and services transactions totaling $413 were charged to the grant and incurred between July 2023 and December 2023.
Subsequently we reviewed a summary of expenditures on the two grant awards noted, and we noted $81,075 in expenditures charged to the grants that were incurred after June 30, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SP-2300023 and 2300026 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreements specified that the period of performance was to expire on June 30, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $81,075.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($189,351) out of a population of 1,032 ($2,372,376) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR payroll expenditures were 44 ($112,139) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $778 was charged to the grant and incurred in July 2023.
A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($32,118) out of a population of 538 ($242,467) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR goods and services expenditures were 49 ($25,743) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted four goods and services transactions totaling $413 were charged to the grant and incurred between July 2023 and December 2023.
Subsequently we reviewed a summary of expenditures on the two grant awards noted, and we noted $81,075 in expenditures charged to the grants that were incurred after June 30, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SP-2300023 and 2300026 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreements specified that the period of performance was to expire on June 30, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $81,075.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($189,351) out of a population of 1,032 ($2,372,376) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR payroll expenditures were 44 ($112,139) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $778 was charged to the grant and incurred in July 2023.
A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($32,118) out of a population of 538 ($242,467) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR goods and services expenditures were 49 ($25,743) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted four goods and services transactions totaling $413 were charged to the grant and incurred between July 2023 and December 2023.
Subsequently we reviewed a summary of expenditures on the two grant awards noted, and we noted $81,075 in expenditures charged to the grants that were incurred after June 30, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SP-2300023 and 2300026 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreements specified that the period of performance was to expire on June 30, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $81,075.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($189,351) out of a population of 1,032 ($2,372,376) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR payroll expenditures were 44 ($112,139) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $778 was charged to the grant and incurred in July 2023.
A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($32,118) out of a population of 538 ($242,467) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR goods and services expenditures were 49 ($25,743) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted four goods and services transactions totaling $413 were charged to the grant and incurred between July 2023 and December 2023.
Subsequently we reviewed a summary of expenditures on the two grant awards noted, and we noted $81,075 in expenditures charged to the grants that were incurred after June 30, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SP-2300023 and 2300026 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreements specified that the period of performance was to expire on June 30, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $81,075.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($189,351) out of a population of 1,032 ($2,372,376) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR payroll expenditures were 44 ($112,139) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $778 was charged to the grant and incurred in July 2023.
A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($32,118) out of a population of 538 ($242,467) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR goods and services expenditures were 49 ($25,743) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted four goods and services transactions totaling $413 were charged to the grant and incurred between July 2023 and December 2023.
Subsequently we reviewed a summary of expenditures on the two grant awards noted, and we noted $81,075 in expenditures charged to the grants that were incurred after June 30, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SP-2300023 and 2300026 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreements specified that the period of performance was to expire on June 30, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $81,075.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($189,351) out of a population of 1,032 ($2,372,376) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR payroll expenditures were 44 ($112,139) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $778 was charged to the grant and incurred in July 2023.
A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($32,118) out of a population of 538 ($242,467) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR goods and services expenditures were 49 ($25,743) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted four goods and services transactions totaling $413 were charged to the grant and incurred between July 2023 and December 2023.
Subsequently we reviewed a summary of expenditures on the two grant awards noted, and we noted $81,075 in expenditures charged to the grants that were incurred after June 30, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SP-2300023 and 2300026 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreements specified that the period of performance was to expire on June 30, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $81,075.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($189,351) out of a population of 1,032 ($2,372,376) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR payroll expenditures were 44 ($112,139) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $778 was charged to the grant and incurred in July 2023.
A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($32,118) out of a population of 538 ($242,467) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR goods and services expenditures were 49 ($25,743) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted four goods and services transactions totaling $413 were charged to the grant and incurred between July 2023 and December 2023.
Subsequently we reviewed a summary of expenditures on the two grant awards noted, and we noted $81,075 in expenditures charged to the grants that were incurred after June 30, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SP-2300023 and 2300026 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreements specified that the period of performance was to expire on June 30, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $81,075.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($189,351) out of a population of 1,032 ($2,372,376) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR payroll expenditures were 44 ($112,139) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $778 was charged to the grant and incurred in July 2023.
A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($32,118) out of a population of 538 ($242,467) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR goods and services expenditures were 49 ($25,743) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted four goods and services transactions totaling $413 were charged to the grant and incurred between July 2023 and December 2023.
Subsequently we reviewed a summary of expenditures on the two grant awards noted, and we noted $81,075 in expenditures charged to the grants that were incurred after June 30, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award CC2312 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented and subawards were missing required information.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established and ensure subawards included all required information.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected by UNLV.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of three subawards out of a population of eight was selected for testing. All three subawards were missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award CC2312 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented and subawards were missing required information.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established and ensure subawards included all required information.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected by UNLV.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of three subawards out of a population of eight was selected for testing. All three subawards were missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award CC2312 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented and subawards were missing required information.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established and ensure subawards included all required information.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected by UNLV.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of three subawards out of a population of eight was selected for testing. All three subawards were missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award CC2312 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented and subawards were missing required information.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established and ensure subawards included all required information.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected by UNLV.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of three subawards out of a population of eight was selected for testing. All three subawards were missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award CC2312 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented and subawards were missing required information.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established and ensure subawards included all required information.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected by UNLV.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of three subawards out of a population of eight was selected for testing. All three subawards were missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award CC2312 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented and subawards were missing required information.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established and ensure subawards included all required information.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected by UNLV.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of three subawards out of a population of eight was selected for testing. All three subawards were missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award CC2312 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented and subawards were missing required information.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established and ensure subawards included all required information.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected by UNLV.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of three subawards out of a population of eight was selected for testing. All three subawards were missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award CC2312 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented and subawards were missing required information.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established and ensure subawards included all required information.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected by UNLV.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of three subawards out of a population of eight was selected for testing. All three subawards were missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award CC2312 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented and subawards were missing required information.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established and ensure subawards included all required information.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected by UNLV.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of three subawards out of a population of eight was selected for testing. All three subawards were missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award CC2312 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented and subawards were missing required information.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established and ensure subawards included all required information.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected by UNLV.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of three subawards out of a population of eight was selected for testing. All three subawards were missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award CC2312 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented and subawards were missing required information.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established and ensure subawards included all required information.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected by UNLV.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of three subawards out of a population of eight was selected for testing. All three subawards were missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Head Start, 93.600
Reporting
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 93.600 for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that grant recipients are required to submit a Federal Financial Report (SF-425). The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) requires direct recipients of certain federal awards to report subaward information.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of SF-425 reports or subaward information required by the FFATA.
Effect: Inaccurate information was reported to the federal agency on the SF-425 and may be reported to the federal agency for the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of six SF-425 reports submitted during the year was selected for testing. We noted that there was no evidence of review on any of the six SF-425 reports.
The entire population of one subaward report submitted during the year was selected for testing. We noted that there was no evidence of review for the one subaward report required by the FFATA.
The following errors were noted by report:
December 31, 2023 SF-425
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
Direct Costs $46,048 $45,892
Indirect costs $8,126 $8,077
July 31, 2023 SF-425 Final
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
Direct Costs $2,006,888 $2,006,935
Indirect costs $160,551 $160,555
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of SF-425 reports and subaward information required by the FFATA.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under the Research and
Development Cluster for DRI, UNR, and WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
Grantors require the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between
the preparer and reviewer. In addition, indirect costs were unintentionally charged at a lower rate
than approved.
Cause: Desert Research Institute (DRI), University of Nevada, Reno (UNR), and Western
Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review
and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the grantor.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the grantor and funds may not be
drawn on a reimbursement basis or for immediate cash needs and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 62 Requests for Reimbursement out of a
population of 453 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute
DRI had 12 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer on any
of the 12 requests.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 23 requests selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted that one request was not
reviewed by an individual independent of the preparer.
In addition, we noted two requests included indirect costs at a rate lower than the approved rate
in the grant agreement, which caused a total under- reimbursement of $4,286.
Western Nevada College
WNC had one request selected for testing of the sample of 62. We noted there was no evidence of
review by an individual independent of the preparer for the one request.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend DRI, UNR, and WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the
documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was $40,000.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely. Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was
$40,000.
Repeat Finding from
Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was $40,000.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely. Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was
$40,000.
Repeat Finding from
Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was $40,000.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely. Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was
$40,000.
Repeat Finding from
Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was $40,000.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely. Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was
$40,000.
Repeat Finding from
Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was $40,000.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely. Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was
$40,000.
Repeat Finding from
Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was $40,000.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely. Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was
$40,000.
Repeat Finding from
Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was $40,000.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely. Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was
$40,000.
Repeat Finding from
Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was $40,000.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely. Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was
$40,000.
Repeat Finding from
Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was $40,000.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely. Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was
$40,000.
Repeat Finding from
Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was $40,000.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely. Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the
Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all direct grant awards included under assistance
listing
93.866 as part of the Research and Development Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of
Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.305(b)(1) provides that pass-through entities must monitor cash drawdowns by
their subrecipients to ensure that the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the
subrecipient and their disbursement for program purposes is minimized.
Condition: An advance payment was made to a subrecipient in excess of immediate cash
needs.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to
ensure advance payments to subrecipients would be disbursed for program purposes timely.
Effect: Unspent funds were retained by the subrecipient for a period beyond the
subaward’s period of performance and liquidation period.
Questioned Costs: Undetermined as a final reconciliation of unspent funds to be returned has
not been finalized with the subrecipient.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 pass-through payments out of a population of
636 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR had 25 pass-through
payments selected of the 60 in the sample. We noted procedures were not performed to minimize the
time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds and disbursement for program purposes for one
pass- through payment. The total originally advanced to the subrecipient was
$40,000.
Repeat Finding from
Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure advance payments to
subrecipients are disbursed for program purposes timely.
Views of Responsible
Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
Nevada System of Higher Education
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2024
2024-009: U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed
in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included
under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of
Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based
approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the
appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the
subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the
subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward,
and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue
management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely
corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not
performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed,
and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with
subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater
than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions:
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o Nevada State University (NSU)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
Nevada State University:
NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas:
UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing.
o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives.
o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
University of Nevada, Reno:
UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61.
o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing.
o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through the State of Nevada as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Adult Education – Basic Grants to States, 84.002
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.002 for WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
The pass-through entity requires the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and reviewer.
Cause: Western Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the pass-through entity.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the pass-through entity and funds may not be drawn on a reimbursement basis and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 12 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 76 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. Three of the Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to WNC. We noted that there was no evidence of review on any of the three Requests for Reimbursement.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through the State of Nevada as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Adult Education – Basic Grants to States, 84.002
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.002 for WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
The pass-through entity requires the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and reviewer.
Cause: Western Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the pass-through entity.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the pass-through entity and funds may not be drawn on a reimbursement basis and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 12 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 76 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. Three of the Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to WNC. We noted that there was no evidence of review on any of the three Requests for Reimbursement.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through the State of Nevada as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Adult Education – Basic Grants to States, 84.002
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.002 for WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
The pass-through entity requires the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and reviewer.
Cause: Western Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the pass-through entity.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the pass-through entity and funds may not be drawn on a reimbursement basis and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 12 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 76 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. Three of the Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to WNC. We noted that there was no evidence of review on any of the three Requests for Reimbursement.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through the State of Nevada as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Adult Education – Basic Grants to States, 84.002
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.002 for WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
The pass-through entity requires the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and reviewer.
Cause: Western Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the pass-through entity.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the pass-through entity and funds may not be drawn on a reimbursement basis and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 12 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 76 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. Three of the Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to WNC. We noted that there was no evidence of review on any of the three Requests for Reimbursement.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through the State of Nevada as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Adult Education – Basic Grants to States, 84.002
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.002 for WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
The pass-through entity requires the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and reviewer.
Cause: Western Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the pass-through entity.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the pass-through entity and funds may not be drawn on a reimbursement basis and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 12 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 76 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. Three of the Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to WNC. We noted that there was no evidence of review on any of the three Requests for Reimbursement.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through the State of Nevada as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Adult Education – Basic Grants to States, 84.002
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.002 for WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
The pass-through entity requires the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and reviewer.
Cause: Western Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the pass-through entity.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the pass-through entity and funds may not be drawn on a reimbursement basis and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 12 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 76 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. Three of the Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to WNC. We noted that there was no evidence of review on any of the three Requests for Reimbursement.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through the State of Nevada as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Adult Education – Basic Grants to States, 84.002
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.002 for WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
The pass-through entity requires the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and reviewer.
Cause: Western Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the pass-through entity.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the pass-through entity and funds may not be drawn on a reimbursement basis and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 12 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 76 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. Three of the Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to WNC. We noted that there was no evidence of review on any of the three Requests for Reimbursement.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through the State of Nevada as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Adult Education – Basic Grants to States, 84.002
Cash Management
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.002 for WNC on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
The pass-through entity requires the submission of Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and reviewer.
Cause: Western Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement submitted to the pass-through entity.
Effect: Inaccurate information may be reported to the pass-through entity and funds may not be drawn on a reimbursement basis and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 12 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 76 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. Three of the Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to WNC. We noted that there was no evidence of review on any of the three Requests for Reimbursement.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend WNC enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of Requests for Reimbursement.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through the State of Nevada as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Adult Education – Basic Grants to States, 84.002
Earmarking
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.002 for WNC and CSN on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
Section 121(b)(1)(A) of WIOA provides that eligible providers must use at least 95 percent of the funds received from the state eligible agency to carry out adult education and literacy activities unless a lower limit has been agreed to by the state eligible agency. Eligible providers may use up to five percent of their funds for noninstructional costs, including planning, administration, professional development, providing services in alignment with the local workforce development plan and fulfilling certain one-stop partner responsibilities.
The state eligible agency agreed to lower adult education and literacy limits and higher maximum noninstructional limits for the College of Southern Nevada and Western Nevada College as follows:
o College of Southern Nevada
Basic Instruction: Instructional – 77.6% / Non-instructional 22.40%
Integrated English Literacy and Civics Instruction: Instructional – 88% / Non-instructional 12%
o Western Nevada College
Basic Instruction: Instructional – 74.83% / Non-instructional 15.27%
Integrated English Literacy and Civics Instruction: Instructional – 90% / Non-instructional 10%
Condition: There was no evidence of reviewing budget to actual expenditures to ensure compliance with the earmarking requirement. In addition, spending on non-instructional costs exceeded the maximum limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Cause: The College of Southern Nevada (CSN) and Western Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure non-instructional costs did not exceed the maximum proportional limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Effect: Administrative non-instructional costs exceeded the allowable amount and may subsequently exceed the allowable amount and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 12 monthly budget to actual expense reconciliations out of a population of 48 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. In addition, the instructional earmark was tested as a whole for each applicable institution.
The following errors were noted by each institution:
College of Southern Nevada
CSN exceeded the maximum spending for non-instructional expenditures as follows:
Program Allowable Non-Instructional % Actual Non-Instructional % Questioned Costs
Basic 22.40% 22.77% $6,363
Western Nevada College
Three monthly budget to actual expense reconciliations were applicable to WNC. We noted that there was no evidence of review on any of the three reconciliations.
WNC exceeded the maximum spending for non-instructional expenditures as follows:
Program Allowable Non-Instructional % Actual Non-Instructional % Questioned Costs
IEL and Civics 10.00% 16.84% $17,308
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend CSN and WNC enhance internal controls to ensure non-instructional costs do not exceed the maximum proportional limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Views of Responsible Officials: The College of Southern Nevada agrees with this finding. Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through the State of Nevada as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Adult Education – Basic Grants to States, 84.002
Earmarking
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.002 for WNC and CSN on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
Section 121(b)(1)(A) of WIOA provides that eligible providers must use at least 95 percent of the funds received from the state eligible agency to carry out adult education and literacy activities unless a lower limit has been agreed to by the state eligible agency. Eligible providers may use up to five percent of their funds for noninstructional costs, including planning, administration, professional development, providing services in alignment with the local workforce development plan and fulfilling certain one-stop partner responsibilities.
The state eligible agency agreed to lower adult education and literacy limits and higher maximum noninstructional limits for the College of Southern Nevada and Western Nevada College as follows:
o College of Southern Nevada
Basic Instruction: Instructional – 77.6% / Non-instructional 22.40%
Integrated English Literacy and Civics Instruction: Instructional – 88% / Non-instructional 12%
o Western Nevada College
Basic Instruction: Instructional – 74.83% / Non-instructional 15.27%
Integrated English Literacy and Civics Instruction: Instructional – 90% / Non-instructional 10%
Condition: There was no evidence of reviewing budget to actual expenditures to ensure compliance with the earmarking requirement. In addition, spending on non-instructional costs exceeded the maximum limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Cause: The College of Southern Nevada (CSN) and Western Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure non-instructional costs did not exceed the maximum proportional limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Effect: Administrative non-instructional costs exceeded the allowable amount and may subsequently exceed the allowable amount and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 12 monthly budget to actual expense reconciliations out of a population of 48 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. In addition, the instructional earmark was tested as a whole for each applicable institution.
The following errors were noted by each institution:
College of Southern Nevada
CSN exceeded the maximum spending for non-instructional expenditures as follows:
Program Allowable Non-Instructional % Actual Non-Instructional % Questioned Costs
Basic 22.40% 22.77% $6,363
Western Nevada College
Three monthly budget to actual expense reconciliations were applicable to WNC. We noted that there was no evidence of review on any of the three reconciliations.
WNC exceeded the maximum spending for non-instructional expenditures as follows:
Program Allowable Non-Instructional % Actual Non-Instructional % Questioned Costs
IEL and Civics 10.00% 16.84% $17,308
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend CSN and WNC enhance internal controls to ensure non-instructional costs do not exceed the maximum proportional limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Views of Responsible Officials: The College of Southern Nevada agrees with this finding. Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through the State of Nevada as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Adult Education – Basic Grants to States, 84.002
Earmarking
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.002 for WNC and CSN on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
Section 121(b)(1)(A) of WIOA provides that eligible providers must use at least 95 percent of the funds received from the state eligible agency to carry out adult education and literacy activities unless a lower limit has been agreed to by the state eligible agency. Eligible providers may use up to five percent of their funds for noninstructional costs, including planning, administration, professional development, providing services in alignment with the local workforce development plan and fulfilling certain one-stop partner responsibilities.
The state eligible agency agreed to lower adult education and literacy limits and higher maximum noninstructional limits for the College of Southern Nevada and Western Nevada College as follows:
o College of Southern Nevada
Basic Instruction: Instructional – 77.6% / Non-instructional 22.40%
Integrated English Literacy and Civics Instruction: Instructional – 88% / Non-instructional 12%
o Western Nevada College
Basic Instruction: Instructional – 74.83% / Non-instructional 15.27%
Integrated English Literacy and Civics Instruction: Instructional – 90% / Non-instructional 10%
Condition: There was no evidence of reviewing budget to actual expenditures to ensure compliance with the earmarking requirement. In addition, spending on non-instructional costs exceeded the maximum limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Cause: The College of Southern Nevada (CSN) and Western Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure non-instructional costs did not exceed the maximum proportional limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Effect: Administrative non-instructional costs exceeded the allowable amount and may subsequently exceed the allowable amount and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 12 monthly budget to actual expense reconciliations out of a population of 48 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. In addition, the instructional earmark was tested as a whole for each applicable institution.
The following errors were noted by each institution:
College of Southern Nevada
CSN exceeded the maximum spending for non-instructional expenditures as follows:
Program Allowable Non-Instructional % Actual Non-Instructional % Questioned Costs
Basic 22.40% 22.77% $6,363
Western Nevada College
Three monthly budget to actual expense reconciliations were applicable to WNC. We noted that there was no evidence of review on any of the three reconciliations.
WNC exceeded the maximum spending for non-instructional expenditures as follows:
Program Allowable Non-Instructional % Actual Non-Instructional % Questioned Costs
IEL and Civics 10.00% 16.84% $17,308
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend CSN and WNC enhance internal controls to ensure non-instructional costs do not exceed the maximum proportional limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Views of Responsible Officials: The College of Southern Nevada agrees with this finding. Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through the State of Nevada as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Adult Education – Basic Grants to States, 84.002
Earmarking
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.002 for WNC and CSN on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
Section 121(b)(1)(A) of WIOA provides that eligible providers must use at least 95 percent of the funds received from the state eligible agency to carry out adult education and literacy activities unless a lower limit has been agreed to by the state eligible agency. Eligible providers may use up to five percent of their funds for noninstructional costs, including planning, administration, professional development, providing services in alignment with the local workforce development plan and fulfilling certain one-stop partner responsibilities.
The state eligible agency agreed to lower adult education and literacy limits and higher maximum noninstructional limits for the College of Southern Nevada and Western Nevada College as follows:
o College of Southern Nevada
Basic Instruction: Instructional – 77.6% / Non-instructional 22.40%
Integrated English Literacy and Civics Instruction: Instructional – 88% / Non-instructional 12%
o Western Nevada College
Basic Instruction: Instructional – 74.83% / Non-instructional 15.27%
Integrated English Literacy and Civics Instruction: Instructional – 90% / Non-instructional 10%
Condition: There was no evidence of reviewing budget to actual expenditures to ensure compliance with the earmarking requirement. In addition, spending on non-instructional costs exceeded the maximum limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Cause: The College of Southern Nevada (CSN) and Western Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure non-instructional costs did not exceed the maximum proportional limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Effect: Administrative non-instructional costs exceeded the allowable amount and may subsequently exceed the allowable amount and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 12 monthly budget to actual expense reconciliations out of a population of 48 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. In addition, the instructional earmark was tested as a whole for each applicable institution.
The following errors were noted by each institution:
College of Southern Nevada
CSN exceeded the maximum spending for non-instructional expenditures as follows:
Program Allowable Non-Instructional % Actual Non-Instructional % Questioned Costs
Basic 22.40% 22.77% $6,363
Western Nevada College
Three monthly budget to actual expense reconciliations were applicable to WNC. We noted that there was no evidence of review on any of the three reconciliations.
WNC exceeded the maximum spending for non-instructional expenditures as follows:
Program Allowable Non-Instructional % Actual Non-Instructional % Questioned Costs
IEL and Civics 10.00% 16.84% $17,308
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend CSN and WNC enhance internal controls to ensure non-instructional costs do not exceed the maximum proportional limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Views of Responsible Officials: The College of Southern Nevada agrees with this finding. Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through the State of Nevada as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Adult Education – Basic Grants to States, 84.002
Earmarking
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.002 for WNC and CSN on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
Section 121(b)(1)(A) of WIOA provides that eligible providers must use at least 95 percent of the funds received from the state eligible agency to carry out adult education and literacy activities unless a lower limit has been agreed to by the state eligible agency. Eligible providers may use up to five percent of their funds for noninstructional costs, including planning, administration, professional development, providing services in alignment with the local workforce development plan and fulfilling certain one-stop partner responsibilities.
The state eligible agency agreed to lower adult education and literacy limits and higher maximum noninstructional limits for the College of Southern Nevada and Western Nevada College as follows:
o College of Southern Nevada
Basic Instruction: Instructional – 77.6% / Non-instructional 22.40%
Integrated English Literacy and Civics Instruction: Instructional – 88% / Non-instructional 12%
o Western Nevada College
Basic Instruction: Instructional – 74.83% / Non-instructional 15.27%
Integrated English Literacy and Civics Instruction: Instructional – 90% / Non-instructional 10%
Condition: There was no evidence of reviewing budget to actual expenditures to ensure compliance with the earmarking requirement. In addition, spending on non-instructional costs exceeded the maximum limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Cause: The College of Southern Nevada (CSN) and Western Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure non-instructional costs did not exceed the maximum proportional limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Effect: Administrative non-instructional costs exceeded the allowable amount and may subsequently exceed the allowable amount and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 12 monthly budget to actual expense reconciliations out of a population of 48 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. In addition, the instructional earmark was tested as a whole for each applicable institution.
The following errors were noted by each institution:
College of Southern Nevada
CSN exceeded the maximum spending for non-instructional expenditures as follows:
Program Allowable Non-Instructional % Actual Non-Instructional % Questioned Costs
Basic 22.40% 22.77% $6,363
Western Nevada College
Three monthly budget to actual expense reconciliations were applicable to WNC. We noted that there was no evidence of review on any of the three reconciliations.
WNC exceeded the maximum spending for non-instructional expenditures as follows:
Program Allowable Non-Instructional % Actual Non-Instructional % Questioned Costs
IEL and Civics 10.00% 16.84% $17,308
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend CSN and WNC enhance internal controls to ensure non-instructional costs do not exceed the maximum proportional limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Views of Responsible Officials: The College of Southern Nevada agrees with this finding. Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through the State of Nevada as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Adult Education – Basic Grants to States, 84.002
Earmarking
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.002 for WNC and CSN on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
Section 121(b)(1)(A) of WIOA provides that eligible providers must use at least 95 percent of the funds received from the state eligible agency to carry out adult education and literacy activities unless a lower limit has been agreed to by the state eligible agency. Eligible providers may use up to five percent of their funds for noninstructional costs, including planning, administration, professional development, providing services in alignment with the local workforce development plan and fulfilling certain one-stop partner responsibilities.
The state eligible agency agreed to lower adult education and literacy limits and higher maximum noninstructional limits for the College of Southern Nevada and Western Nevada College as follows:
o College of Southern Nevada
Basic Instruction: Instructional – 77.6% / Non-instructional 22.40%
Integrated English Literacy and Civics Instruction: Instructional – 88% / Non-instructional 12%
o Western Nevada College
Basic Instruction: Instructional – 74.83% / Non-instructional 15.27%
Integrated English Literacy and Civics Instruction: Instructional – 90% / Non-instructional 10%
Condition: There was no evidence of reviewing budget to actual expenditures to ensure compliance with the earmarking requirement. In addition, spending on non-instructional costs exceeded the maximum limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Cause: The College of Southern Nevada (CSN) and Western Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure non-instructional costs did not exceed the maximum proportional limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Effect: Administrative non-instructional costs exceeded the allowable amount and may subsequently exceed the allowable amount and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 12 monthly budget to actual expense reconciliations out of a population of 48 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. In addition, the instructional earmark was tested as a whole for each applicable institution.
The following errors were noted by each institution:
College of Southern Nevada
CSN exceeded the maximum spending for non-instructional expenditures as follows:
Program Allowable Non-Instructional % Actual Non-Instructional % Questioned Costs
Basic 22.40% 22.77% $6,363
Western Nevada College
Three monthly budget to actual expense reconciliations were applicable to WNC. We noted that there was no evidence of review on any of the three reconciliations.
WNC exceeded the maximum spending for non-instructional expenditures as follows:
Program Allowable Non-Instructional % Actual Non-Instructional % Questioned Costs
IEL and Civics 10.00% 16.84% $17,308
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend CSN and WNC enhance internal controls to ensure non-instructional costs do not exceed the maximum proportional limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Views of Responsible Officials: The College of Southern Nevada agrees with this finding. Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through the State of Nevada as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Adult Education – Basic Grants to States, 84.002
Earmarking
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.002 for WNC and CSN on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
Section 121(b)(1)(A) of WIOA provides that eligible providers must use at least 95 percent of the funds received from the state eligible agency to carry out adult education and literacy activities unless a lower limit has been agreed to by the state eligible agency. Eligible providers may use up to five percent of their funds for noninstructional costs, including planning, administration, professional development, providing services in alignment with the local workforce development plan and fulfilling certain one-stop partner responsibilities.
The state eligible agency agreed to lower adult education and literacy limits and higher maximum noninstructional limits for the College of Southern Nevada and Western Nevada College as follows:
o College of Southern Nevada
Basic Instruction: Instructional – 77.6% / Non-instructional 22.40%
Integrated English Literacy and Civics Instruction: Instructional – 88% / Non-instructional 12%
o Western Nevada College
Basic Instruction: Instructional – 74.83% / Non-instructional 15.27%
Integrated English Literacy and Civics Instruction: Instructional – 90% / Non-instructional 10%
Condition: There was no evidence of reviewing budget to actual expenditures to ensure compliance with the earmarking requirement. In addition, spending on non-instructional costs exceeded the maximum limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Cause: The College of Southern Nevada (CSN) and Western Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure non-instructional costs did not exceed the maximum proportional limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Effect: Administrative non-instructional costs exceeded the allowable amount and may subsequently exceed the allowable amount and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 12 monthly budget to actual expense reconciliations out of a population of 48 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. In addition, the instructional earmark was tested as a whole for each applicable institution.
The following errors were noted by each institution:
College of Southern Nevada
CSN exceeded the maximum spending for non-instructional expenditures as follows:
Program Allowable Non-Instructional % Actual Non-Instructional % Questioned Costs
Basic 22.40% 22.77% $6,363
Western Nevada College
Three monthly budget to actual expense reconciliations were applicable to WNC. We noted that there was no evidence of review on any of the three reconciliations.
WNC exceeded the maximum spending for non-instructional expenditures as follows:
Program Allowable Non-Instructional % Actual Non-Instructional % Questioned Costs
IEL and Civics 10.00% 16.84% $17,308
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend CSN and WNC enhance internal controls to ensure non-instructional costs do not exceed the maximum proportional limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Views of Responsible Officials: The College of Southern Nevada agrees with this finding. Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through the State of Nevada as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Adult Education – Basic Grants to States, 84.002
Earmarking
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.002 for WNC and CSN on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
Section 121(b)(1)(A) of WIOA provides that eligible providers must use at least 95 percent of the funds received from the state eligible agency to carry out adult education and literacy activities unless a lower limit has been agreed to by the state eligible agency. Eligible providers may use up to five percent of their funds for noninstructional costs, including planning, administration, professional development, providing services in alignment with the local workforce development plan and fulfilling certain one-stop partner responsibilities.
The state eligible agency agreed to lower adult education and literacy limits and higher maximum noninstructional limits for the College of Southern Nevada and Western Nevada College as follows:
o College of Southern Nevada
Basic Instruction: Instructional – 77.6% / Non-instructional 22.40%
Integrated English Literacy and Civics Instruction: Instructional – 88% / Non-instructional 12%
o Western Nevada College
Basic Instruction: Instructional – 74.83% / Non-instructional 15.27%
Integrated English Literacy and Civics Instruction: Instructional – 90% / Non-instructional 10%
Condition: There was no evidence of reviewing budget to actual expenditures to ensure compliance with the earmarking requirement. In addition, spending on non-instructional costs exceeded the maximum limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Cause: The College of Southern Nevada (CSN) and Western Nevada College (WNC) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure non-instructional costs did not exceed the maximum proportional limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Effect: Administrative non-instructional costs exceeded the allowable amount and may subsequently exceed the allowable amount and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 12 monthly budget to actual expense reconciliations out of a population of 48 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. In addition, the instructional earmark was tested as a whole for each applicable institution.
The following errors were noted by each institution:
College of Southern Nevada
CSN exceeded the maximum spending for non-instructional expenditures as follows:
Program Allowable Non-Instructional % Actual Non-Instructional % Questioned Costs
Basic 22.40% 22.77% $6,363
Western Nevada College
Three monthly budget to actual expense reconciliations were applicable to WNC. We noted that there was no evidence of review on any of the three reconciliations.
WNC exceeded the maximum spending for non-instructional expenditures as follows:
Program Allowable Non-Instructional % Actual Non-Instructional % Questioned Costs
IEL and Civics 10.00% 16.84% $17,308
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend CSN and WNC enhance internal controls to ensure non-instructional costs do not exceed the maximum proportional limit negotiated with the state eligible agency.
Views of Responsible Officials: The College of Southern Nevada agrees with this finding. Western Nevada College agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Disbursements to or on Behalf of Students
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 668.164(h) states that a Title IV credit balance occurs whenever the amount of Title IV program funds credited to a student's ledger account for a payment period exceeds the amount assessed the student for allowable charges associated with that payment period. A Title IV credit balance must be paid directly to the student or parent as soon as possible, but no later than (i) Fourteen (14) days after the balance occurred if the credit balance occurred after the first day of class of a payment period; or (ii) Fourteen (14) days after the first day of class of a payment period if the credit balance occurred on or before the first day of class of that payment period.
Condition: Credit balances were not remitted timely.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure credit balances were remitted timely after a hold had been placed on the student’s account.
Effect: Students do not receive their money timely.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,589 students who had Title IV disbursements was selected for testing. One student had a credit balance that was generated for their Spring 2023 term and had not cashed the check. A hold was placed on the student’s account until the student eventually cashed the check. However, the hold was not removed and the credit balance from the Fall 2023 term was not removed until April 2024. Therefore, the refund was 218 days after the credit balance occurred (204 days late).
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure credit balances are remitted timely after a hold has been placed on a student’s account.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Disbursements to or on Behalf of Students
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 668.164(h) states that a Title IV credit balance occurs whenever the amount of Title IV program funds credited to a student's ledger account for a payment period exceeds the amount assessed the student for allowable charges associated with that payment period. A Title IV credit balance must be paid directly to the student or parent as soon as possible, but no later than (i) Fourteen (14) days after the balance occurred if the credit balance occurred after the first day of class of a payment period; or (ii) Fourteen (14) days after the first day of class of a payment period if the credit balance occurred on or before the first day of class of that payment period.
Condition: Credit balances were not remitted timely.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure credit balances were remitted timely after a hold had been placed on the student’s account.
Effect: Students do not receive their money timely.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,589 students who had Title IV disbursements was selected for testing. One student had a credit balance that was generated for their Spring 2023 term and had not cashed the check. A hold was placed on the student’s account until the student eventually cashed the check. However, the hold was not removed and the credit balance from the Fall 2023 term was not removed until April 2024. Therefore, the refund was 218 days after the credit balance occurred (204 days late).
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure credit balances are remitted timely after a hold has been placed on a student’s account.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Disbursements to or on Behalf of Students
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 668.164(h) states that a Title IV credit balance occurs whenever the amount of Title IV program funds credited to a student's ledger account for a payment period exceeds the amount assessed the student for allowable charges associated with that payment period. A Title IV credit balance must be paid directly to the student or parent as soon as possible, but no later than (i) Fourteen (14) days after the balance occurred if the credit balance occurred after the first day of class of a payment period; or (ii) Fourteen (14) days after the first day of class of a payment period if the credit balance occurred on or before the first day of class of that payment period.
Condition: Credit balances were not remitted timely.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure credit balances were remitted timely after a hold had been placed on the student’s account.
Effect: Students do not receive their money timely.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,589 students who had Title IV disbursements was selected for testing. One student had a credit balance that was generated for their Spring 2023 term and had not cashed the check. A hold was placed on the student’s account until the student eventually cashed the check. However, the hold was not removed and the credit balance from the Fall 2023 term was not removed until April 2024. Therefore, the refund was 218 days after the credit balance occurred (204 days late).
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure credit balances are remitted timely after a hold has been placed on a student’s account.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Disbursements to or on Behalf of Students
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 668.164(h) states that a Title IV credit balance occurs whenever the amount of Title IV program funds credited to a student's ledger account for a payment period exceeds the amount assessed the student for allowable charges associated with that payment period. A Title IV credit balance must be paid directly to the student or parent as soon as possible, but no later than (i) Fourteen (14) days after the balance occurred if the credit balance occurred after the first day of class of a payment period; or (ii) Fourteen (14) days after the first day of class of a payment period if the credit balance occurred on or before the first day of class of that payment period.
Condition: Credit balances were not remitted timely.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure credit balances were remitted timely after a hold had been placed on the student’s account.
Effect: Students do not receive their money timely.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,589 students who had Title IV disbursements was selected for testing. One student had a credit balance that was generated for their Spring 2023 term and had not cashed the check. A hold was placed on the student’s account until the student eventually cashed the check. However, the hold was not removed and the credit balance from the Fall 2023 term was not removed until April 2024. Therefore, the refund was 218 days after the credit balance occurred (204 days late).
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure credit balances are remitted timely after a hold has been placed on a student’s account.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Return of Title IV (R2T4)
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for CSN, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: In accordance with 34 CFR 668.173(b) and 34 CFR 668.22(e), when a student ceases attendance during a payment period or period of enrollment, drops, takes a leave of absence, or never begins attendance, institutions are required to calculate the percentage of Title IV aid earned following the guidance of the calculation worksheets in Appendix to Volume 5 of the FSA Handbook. When a return of Title IV aid is required, an institution has 45 days (or 30 days for students that never began attendance) to return the funds to Ed.
Condition: There were instances where the calculation of returns was not calculated correctly or were not returned within the required allotted time.
Cause: The following institutions did not have adequate internal controls to ensure R2T4 was calculated correct, and funds returned within the required time:
o College of Southern Nevada (CSN)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: The U.S. Department of Education did not receive returns timely or accurately.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: We noted the following for each institution:
College of Southern Nevada
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,953 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $870 but should have been $1,180. The other return was calculated as $579 but should have been $381.
o Two of the returns were not timely. One was 12 days late and the other was 35 days late.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 857 student returns was selected for testing.
o One return was not calculated correctly. It was calculated as $2,270 but should have been $1,975.
o For one student who did not re-enroll in the Spring 2024 term, their Pell Grant was appropriately cancelled; however, the student’s Fall 2023 Pell Grant was also returned, even though the student had completed 100% of the term. Therefore, $1,555 was returned when it should not have been.
University of Nevada, Reno
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 421 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $2,443 but should have been $2,438. One return was calculated as $2,243 but should have been $2,235.
o Three of the returns were not timely. The three returns were 3 days, 4 days, and 10 days late, respectively.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: Yes, prior year finding 2023-003.
Recommendation: We recommend CSN, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure R2T4 is calculated correctly and timely. In particular, to enhance internal controls to ensure the appropriate days in the term are being used and that the appropriate amount of institution charges is used.
Views of Responsible Officials: The College of Southern Nevada agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Return of Title IV (R2T4)
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for CSN, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: In accordance with 34 CFR 668.173(b) and 34 CFR 668.22(e), when a student ceases attendance during a payment period or period of enrollment, drops, takes a leave of absence, or never begins attendance, institutions are required to calculate the percentage of Title IV aid earned following the guidance of the calculation worksheets in Appendix to Volume 5 of the FSA Handbook. When a return of Title IV aid is required, an institution has 45 days (or 30 days for students that never began attendance) to return the funds to Ed.
Condition: There were instances where the calculation of returns was not calculated correctly or were not returned within the required allotted time.
Cause: The following institutions did not have adequate internal controls to ensure R2T4 was calculated correct, and funds returned within the required time:
o College of Southern Nevada (CSN)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: The U.S. Department of Education did not receive returns timely or accurately.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: We noted the following for each institution:
College of Southern Nevada
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,953 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $870 but should have been $1,180. The other return was calculated as $579 but should have been $381.
o Two of the returns were not timely. One was 12 days late and the other was 35 days late.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 857 student returns was selected for testing.
o One return was not calculated correctly. It was calculated as $2,270 but should have been $1,975.
o For one student who did not re-enroll in the Spring 2024 term, their Pell Grant was appropriately cancelled; however, the student’s Fall 2023 Pell Grant was also returned, even though the student had completed 100% of the term. Therefore, $1,555 was returned when it should not have been.
University of Nevada, Reno
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 421 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $2,443 but should have been $2,438. One return was calculated as $2,243 but should have been $2,235.
o Three of the returns were not timely. The three returns were 3 days, 4 days, and 10 days late, respectively.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: Yes, prior year finding 2023-003.
Recommendation: We recommend CSN, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure R2T4 is calculated correctly and timely. In particular, to enhance internal controls to ensure the appropriate days in the term are being used and that the appropriate amount of institution charges is used.
Views of Responsible Officials: The College of Southern Nevada agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Return of Title IV (R2T4)
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for CSN, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: In accordance with 34 CFR 668.173(b) and 34 CFR 668.22(e), when a student ceases attendance during a payment period or period of enrollment, drops, takes a leave of absence, or never begins attendance, institutions are required to calculate the percentage of Title IV aid earned following the guidance of the calculation worksheets in Appendix to Volume 5 of the FSA Handbook. When a return of Title IV aid is required, an institution has 45 days (or 30 days for students that never began attendance) to return the funds to Ed.
Condition: There were instances where the calculation of returns was not calculated correctly or were not returned within the required allotted time.
Cause: The following institutions did not have adequate internal controls to ensure R2T4 was calculated correct, and funds returned within the required time:
o College of Southern Nevada (CSN)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: The U.S. Department of Education did not receive returns timely or accurately.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: We noted the following for each institution:
College of Southern Nevada
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,953 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $870 but should have been $1,180. The other return was calculated as $579 but should have been $381.
o Two of the returns were not timely. One was 12 days late and the other was 35 days late.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 857 student returns was selected for testing.
o One return was not calculated correctly. It was calculated as $2,270 but should have been $1,975.
o For one student who did not re-enroll in the Spring 2024 term, their Pell Grant was appropriately cancelled; however, the student’s Fall 2023 Pell Grant was also returned, even though the student had completed 100% of the term. Therefore, $1,555 was returned when it should not have been.
University of Nevada, Reno
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 421 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $2,443 but should have been $2,438. One return was calculated as $2,243 but should have been $2,235.
o Three of the returns were not timely. The three returns were 3 days, 4 days, and 10 days late, respectively.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: Yes, prior year finding 2023-003.
Recommendation: We recommend CSN, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure R2T4 is calculated correctly and timely. In particular, to enhance internal controls to ensure the appropriate days in the term are being used and that the appropriate amount of institution charges is used.
Views of Responsible Officials: The College of Southern Nevada agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Return of Title IV (R2T4)
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for CSN, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: In accordance with 34 CFR 668.173(b) and 34 CFR 668.22(e), when a student ceases attendance during a payment period or period of enrollment, drops, takes a leave of absence, or never begins attendance, institutions are required to calculate the percentage of Title IV aid earned following the guidance of the calculation worksheets in Appendix to Volume 5 of the FSA Handbook. When a return of Title IV aid is required, an institution has 45 days (or 30 days for students that never began attendance) to return the funds to Ed.
Condition: There were instances where the calculation of returns was not calculated correctly or were not returned within the required allotted time.
Cause: The following institutions did not have adequate internal controls to ensure R2T4 was calculated correct, and funds returned within the required time:
o College of Southern Nevada (CSN)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: The U.S. Department of Education did not receive returns timely or accurately.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: We noted the following for each institution:
College of Southern Nevada
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,953 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $870 but should have been $1,180. The other return was calculated as $579 but should have been $381.
o Two of the returns were not timely. One was 12 days late and the other was 35 days late.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 857 student returns was selected for testing.
o One return was not calculated correctly. It was calculated as $2,270 but should have been $1,975.
o For one student who did not re-enroll in the Spring 2024 term, their Pell Grant was appropriately cancelled; however, the student’s Fall 2023 Pell Grant was also returned, even though the student had completed 100% of the term. Therefore, $1,555 was returned when it should not have been.
University of Nevada, Reno
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 421 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $2,443 but should have been $2,438. One return was calculated as $2,243 but should have been $2,235.
o Three of the returns were not timely. The three returns were 3 days, 4 days, and 10 days late, respectively.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: Yes, prior year finding 2023-003.
Recommendation: We recommend CSN, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure R2T4 is calculated correctly and timely. In particular, to enhance internal controls to ensure the appropriate days in the term are being used and that the appropriate amount of institution charges is used.
Views of Responsible Officials: The College of Southern Nevada agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Enrollment Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for NSU on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 690.83(b)(2) and 34 CFR 685.309 states that institutions are responsible for timely and accurate reporting of a student’s enrollment status and changes in those enrollment statues, whether they report directly or via a third-party servicer. When an Institution is made aware of a change in a student’s enrollment status, the Institution has 60 days to update the change in enrollment status via NSLDS.
Condition: Change in enrollment status was not reported accurately or timely.
Cause: The Nevada State University (NSU) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status was correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, NSU did not have adequate internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Effect: Non-timely and inaccurate reporting to the NSLDS could potentially impact future eligibility determinations and repayment provisions.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 772 students who had a change in their enrollment status was selected for testing. We noted four student’s enrollment status changes were not reported accurately. In addition, we noted 20 enrollment status changes were not reported timely. These twenty instances ranged from 2 days late to 62 days late with an average of 31 days late.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status is correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, we recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Nevada State University agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Enrollment Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for NSU on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 690.83(b)(2) and 34 CFR 685.309 states that institutions are responsible for timely and accurate reporting of a student’s enrollment status and changes in those enrollment statues, whether they report directly or via a third-party servicer. When an Institution is made aware of a change in a student’s enrollment status, the Institution has 60 days to update the change in enrollment status via NSLDS.
Condition: Change in enrollment status was not reported accurately or timely.
Cause: The Nevada State University (NSU) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status was correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, NSU did not have adequate internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Effect: Non-timely and inaccurate reporting to the NSLDS could potentially impact future eligibility determinations and repayment provisions.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 772 students who had a change in their enrollment status was selected for testing. We noted four student’s enrollment status changes were not reported accurately. In addition, we noted 20 enrollment status changes were not reported timely. These twenty instances ranged from 2 days late to 62 days late with an average of 31 days late.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status is correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, we recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Nevada State University agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Enrollment Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for NSU on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 690.83(b)(2) and 34 CFR 685.309 states that institutions are responsible for timely and accurate reporting of a student’s enrollment status and changes in those enrollment statues, whether they report directly or via a third-party servicer. When an Institution is made aware of a change in a student’s enrollment status, the Institution has 60 days to update the change in enrollment status via NSLDS.
Condition: Change in enrollment status was not reported accurately or timely.
Cause: The Nevada State University (NSU) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status was correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, NSU did not have adequate internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Effect: Non-timely and inaccurate reporting to the NSLDS could potentially impact future eligibility determinations and repayment provisions.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 772 students who had a change in their enrollment status was selected for testing. We noted four student’s enrollment status changes were not reported accurately. In addition, we noted 20 enrollment status changes were not reported timely. These twenty instances ranged from 2 days late to 62 days late with an average of 31 days late.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status is correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, we recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Nevada State University agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Enrollment Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for NSU on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 690.83(b)(2) and 34 CFR 685.309 states that institutions are responsible for timely and accurate reporting of a student’s enrollment status and changes in those enrollment statues, whether they report directly or via a third-party servicer. When an Institution is made aware of a change in a student’s enrollment status, the Institution has 60 days to update the change in enrollment status via NSLDS.
Condition: Change in enrollment status was not reported accurately or timely.
Cause: The Nevada State University (NSU) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status was correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, NSU did not have adequate internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Effect: Non-timely and inaccurate reporting to the NSLDS could potentially impact future eligibility determinations and repayment provisions.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 772 students who had a change in their enrollment status was selected for testing. We noted four student’s enrollment status changes were not reported accurately. In addition, we noted 20 enrollment status changes were not reported timely. These twenty instances ranged from 2 days late to 62 days late with an average of 31 days late.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status is correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, we recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Nevada State University agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through Utah State University as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, 84.116
Eligibility
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.116 for UNR and UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
The grant terms and conditions specify various eligibility requirements that beneficiaries must meet to participate in the program, such as minimum GPA, academic status, degree seeking opportunities, and other demographic information.
Condition: A documented review of eligibility determinations by an individual independent of the preparer (segregation of duties) was not in place.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for a documented review of eligibility determinations by an individual independent of the initial determination.
Effect: An incorrect eligibility determination may occur and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 eligibility determinations out of a population of 358 was selected for testing across the Nevada System of Higher Education.
The following errors were noted by each institution:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
UNLV had 23 eligibility determinations selected for testing of the sample of 60. We noted there was no evidence that eligibility determinations were reviewed by an individual independent of the determination for all 23 determinations.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 19 eligibility determinations selected for testing of the sample of 60. We noted there was no evidence that eligibility determinations were reviewed by an individual independent of the determination for all 19 determinations.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to provide for a documented review of eligibility determinations by an individual independent of the initial determination.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Direct and Pass-through Utah State University as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, 84.116
Eligibility
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 84.116 for UNR and UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
The grant terms and conditions specify various eligibility requirements that beneficiaries must meet to participate in the program, such as minimum GPA, academic status, degree seeking opportunities, and other demographic information.
Condition: A documented review of eligibility determinations by an individual independent of the preparer (segregation of duties) was not in place.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for a documented review of eligibility determinations by an individual independent of the initial determination.
Effect: An incorrect eligibility determination may occur and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 eligibility determinations out of a population of 358 was selected for testing across the Nevada System of Higher Education.
The following errors were noted by each institution:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
UNLV had 23 eligibility determinations selected for testing of the sample of 60. We noted there was no evidence that eligibility determinations were reviewed by an individual independent of the determination for all 23 determinations.
University of Nevada, Reno
UNR had 19 eligibility determinations selected for testing of the sample of 60. We noted there was no evidence that eligibility determinations were reviewed by an individual independent of the determination for all 19 determinations.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to provide for a documented review of eligibility determinations by an individual independent of the initial determination.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Disbursements to or on Behalf of Students
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 668.164(h) states that a Title IV credit balance occurs whenever the amount of Title IV program funds credited to a student's ledger account for a payment period exceeds the amount assessed the student for allowable charges associated with that payment period. A Title IV credit balance must be paid directly to the student or parent as soon as possible, but no later than (i) Fourteen (14) days after the balance occurred if the credit balance occurred after the first day of class of a payment period; or (ii) Fourteen (14) days after the first day of class of a payment period if the credit balance occurred on or before the first day of class of that payment period.
Condition: Credit balances were not remitted timely.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure credit balances were remitted timely after a hold had been placed on the student’s account.
Effect: Students do not receive their money timely.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,589 students who had Title IV disbursements was selected for testing. One student had a credit balance that was generated for their Spring 2023 term and had not cashed the check. A hold was placed on the student’s account until the student eventually cashed the check. However, the hold was not removed and the credit balance from the Fall 2023 term was not removed until April 2024. Therefore, the refund was 218 days after the credit balance occurred (204 days late).
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure credit balances are remitted timely after a hold has been placed on a student’s account.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Disbursements to or on Behalf of Students
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 668.164(h) states that a Title IV credit balance occurs whenever the amount of Title IV program funds credited to a student's ledger account for a payment period exceeds the amount assessed the student for allowable charges associated with that payment period. A Title IV credit balance must be paid directly to the student or parent as soon as possible, but no later than (i) Fourteen (14) days after the balance occurred if the credit balance occurred after the first day of class of a payment period; or (ii) Fourteen (14) days after the first day of class of a payment period if the credit balance occurred on or before the first day of class of that payment period.
Condition: Credit balances were not remitted timely.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure credit balances were remitted timely after a hold had been placed on the student’s account.
Effect: Students do not receive their money timely.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,589 students who had Title IV disbursements was selected for testing. One student had a credit balance that was generated for their Spring 2023 term and had not cashed the check. A hold was placed on the student’s account until the student eventually cashed the check. However, the hold was not removed and the credit balance from the Fall 2023 term was not removed until April 2024. Therefore, the refund was 218 days after the credit balance occurred (204 days late).
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure credit balances are remitted timely after a hold has been placed on a student’s account.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Disbursements to or on Behalf of Students
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 668.164(h) states that a Title IV credit balance occurs whenever the amount of Title IV program funds credited to a student's ledger account for a payment period exceeds the amount assessed the student for allowable charges associated with that payment period. A Title IV credit balance must be paid directly to the student or parent as soon as possible, but no later than (i) Fourteen (14) days after the balance occurred if the credit balance occurred after the first day of class of a payment period; or (ii) Fourteen (14) days after the first day of class of a payment period if the credit balance occurred on or before the first day of class of that payment period.
Condition: Credit balances were not remitted timely.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure credit balances were remitted timely after a hold had been placed on the student’s account.
Effect: Students do not receive their money timely.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,589 students who had Title IV disbursements was selected for testing. One student had a credit balance that was generated for their Spring 2023 term and had not cashed the check. A hold was placed on the student’s account until the student eventually cashed the check. However, the hold was not removed and the credit balance from the Fall 2023 term was not removed until April 2024. Therefore, the refund was 218 days after the credit balance occurred (204 days late).
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure credit balances are remitted timely after a hold has been placed on a student’s account.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Disbursements to or on Behalf of Students
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 668.164(h) states that a Title IV credit balance occurs whenever the amount of Title IV program funds credited to a student's ledger account for a payment period exceeds the amount assessed the student for allowable charges associated with that payment period. A Title IV credit balance must be paid directly to the student or parent as soon as possible, but no later than (i) Fourteen (14) days after the balance occurred if the credit balance occurred after the first day of class of a payment period; or (ii) Fourteen (14) days after the first day of class of a payment period if the credit balance occurred on or before the first day of class of that payment period.
Condition: Credit balances were not remitted timely.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure credit balances were remitted timely after a hold had been placed on the student’s account.
Effect: Students do not receive their money timely.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,589 students who had Title IV disbursements was selected for testing. One student had a credit balance that was generated for their Spring 2023 term and had not cashed the check. A hold was placed on the student’s account until the student eventually cashed the check. However, the hold was not removed and the credit balance from the Fall 2023 term was not removed until April 2024. Therefore, the refund was 218 days after the credit balance occurred (204 days late).
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure credit balances are remitted timely after a hold has been placed on a student’s account.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Disbursements to or on Behalf of Students
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 668.164(h) states that a Title IV credit balance occurs whenever the amount of Title IV program funds credited to a student's ledger account for a payment period exceeds the amount assessed the student for allowable charges associated with that payment period. A Title IV credit balance must be paid directly to the student or parent as soon as possible, but no later than (i) Fourteen (14) days after the balance occurred if the credit balance occurred after the first day of class of a payment period; or (ii) Fourteen (14) days after the first day of class of a payment period if the credit balance occurred on or before the first day of class of that payment period.
Condition: Credit balances were not remitted timely.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure credit balances were remitted timely after a hold had been placed on the student’s account.
Effect: Students do not receive their money timely.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,589 students who had Title IV disbursements was selected for testing. One student had a credit balance that was generated for their Spring 2023 term and had not cashed the check. A hold was placed on the student’s account until the student eventually cashed the check. However, the hold was not removed and the credit balance from the Fall 2023 term was not removed until April 2024. Therefore, the refund was 218 days after the credit balance occurred (204 days late).
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure credit balances are remitted timely after a hold has been placed on a student’s account.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Return of Title IV (R2T4)
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for CSN, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: In accordance with 34 CFR 668.173(b) and 34 CFR 668.22(e), when a student ceases attendance during a payment period or period of enrollment, drops, takes a leave of absence, or never begins attendance, institutions are required to calculate the percentage of Title IV aid earned following the guidance of the calculation worksheets in Appendix to Volume 5 of the FSA Handbook. When a return of Title IV aid is required, an institution has 45 days (or 30 days for students that never began attendance) to return the funds to Ed.
Condition: There were instances where the calculation of returns was not calculated correctly or were not returned within the required allotted time.
Cause: The following institutions did not have adequate internal controls to ensure R2T4 was calculated correct, and funds returned within the required time:
o College of Southern Nevada (CSN)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: The U.S. Department of Education did not receive returns timely or accurately.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: We noted the following for each institution:
College of Southern Nevada
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,953 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $870 but should have been $1,180. The other return was calculated as $579 but should have been $381.
o Two of the returns were not timely. One was 12 days late and the other was 35 days late.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 857 student returns was selected for testing.
o One return was not calculated correctly. It was calculated as $2,270 but should have been $1,975.
o For one student who did not re-enroll in the Spring 2024 term, their Pell Grant was appropriately cancelled; however, the student’s Fall 2023 Pell Grant was also returned, even though the student had completed 100% of the term. Therefore, $1,555 was returned when it should not have been.
University of Nevada, Reno
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 421 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $2,443 but should have been $2,438. One return was calculated as $2,243 but should have been $2,235.
o Three of the returns were not timely. The three returns were 3 days, 4 days, and 10 days late, respectively.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: Yes, prior year finding 2023-003.
Recommendation: We recommend CSN, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure R2T4 is calculated correctly and timely. In particular, to enhance internal controls to ensure the appropriate days in the term are being used and that the appropriate amount of institution charges is used.
Views of Responsible Officials: The College of Southern Nevada agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Return of Title IV (R2T4)
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for CSN, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: In accordance with 34 CFR 668.173(b) and 34 CFR 668.22(e), when a student ceases attendance during a payment period or period of enrollment, drops, takes a leave of absence, or never begins attendance, institutions are required to calculate the percentage of Title IV aid earned following the guidance of the calculation worksheets in Appendix to Volume 5 of the FSA Handbook. When a return of Title IV aid is required, an institution has 45 days (or 30 days for students that never began attendance) to return the funds to Ed.
Condition: There were instances where the calculation of returns was not calculated correctly or were not returned within the required allotted time.
Cause: The following institutions did not have adequate internal controls to ensure R2T4 was calculated correct, and funds returned within the required time:
o College of Southern Nevada (CSN)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: The U.S. Department of Education did not receive returns timely or accurately.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: We noted the following for each institution:
College of Southern Nevada
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,953 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $870 but should have been $1,180. The other return was calculated as $579 but should have been $381.
o Two of the returns were not timely. One was 12 days late and the other was 35 days late.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 857 student returns was selected for testing.
o One return was not calculated correctly. It was calculated as $2,270 but should have been $1,975.
o For one student who did not re-enroll in the Spring 2024 term, their Pell Grant was appropriately cancelled; however, the student’s Fall 2023 Pell Grant was also returned, even though the student had completed 100% of the term. Therefore, $1,555 was returned when it should not have been.
University of Nevada, Reno
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 421 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $2,443 but should have been $2,438. One return was calculated as $2,243 but should have been $2,235.
o Three of the returns were not timely. The three returns were 3 days, 4 days, and 10 days late, respectively.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: Yes, prior year finding 2023-003.
Recommendation: We recommend CSN, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure R2T4 is calculated correctly and timely. In particular, to enhance internal controls to ensure the appropriate days in the term are being used and that the appropriate amount of institution charges is used.
Views of Responsible Officials: The College of Southern Nevada agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Return of Title IV (R2T4)
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for CSN, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: In accordance with 34 CFR 668.173(b) and 34 CFR 668.22(e), when a student ceases attendance during a payment period or period of enrollment, drops, takes a leave of absence, or never begins attendance, institutions are required to calculate the percentage of Title IV aid earned following the guidance of the calculation worksheets in Appendix to Volume 5 of the FSA Handbook. When a return of Title IV aid is required, an institution has 45 days (or 30 days for students that never began attendance) to return the funds to Ed.
Condition: There were instances where the calculation of returns was not calculated correctly or were not returned within the required allotted time.
Cause: The following institutions did not have adequate internal controls to ensure R2T4 was calculated correct, and funds returned within the required time:
o College of Southern Nevada (CSN)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: The U.S. Department of Education did not receive returns timely or accurately.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: We noted the following for each institution:
College of Southern Nevada
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,953 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $870 but should have been $1,180. The other return was calculated as $579 but should have been $381.
o Two of the returns were not timely. One was 12 days late and the other was 35 days late.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 857 student returns was selected for testing.
o One return was not calculated correctly. It was calculated as $2,270 but should have been $1,975.
o For one student who did not re-enroll in the Spring 2024 term, their Pell Grant was appropriately cancelled; however, the student’s Fall 2023 Pell Grant was also returned, even though the student had completed 100% of the term. Therefore, $1,555 was returned when it should not have been.
University of Nevada, Reno
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 421 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $2,443 but should have been $2,438. One return was calculated as $2,243 but should have been $2,235.
o Three of the returns were not timely. The three returns were 3 days, 4 days, and 10 days late, respectively.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: Yes, prior year finding 2023-003.
Recommendation: We recommend CSN, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure R2T4 is calculated correctly and timely. In particular, to enhance internal controls to ensure the appropriate days in the term are being used and that the appropriate amount of institution charges is used.
Views of Responsible Officials: The College of Southern Nevada agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Return of Title IV (R2T4)
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for CSN, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: In accordance with 34 CFR 668.173(b) and 34 CFR 668.22(e), when a student ceases attendance during a payment period or period of enrollment, drops, takes a leave of absence, or never begins attendance, institutions are required to calculate the percentage of Title IV aid earned following the guidance of the calculation worksheets in Appendix to Volume 5 of the FSA Handbook. When a return of Title IV aid is required, an institution has 45 days (or 30 days for students that never began attendance) to return the funds to Ed.
Condition: There were instances where the calculation of returns was not calculated correctly or were not returned within the required allotted time.
Cause: The following institutions did not have adequate internal controls to ensure R2T4 was calculated correct, and funds returned within the required time:
o College of Southern Nevada (CSN)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: The U.S. Department of Education did not receive returns timely or accurately.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: We noted the following for each institution:
College of Southern Nevada
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,953 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $870 but should have been $1,180. The other return was calculated as $579 but should have been $381.
o Two of the returns were not timely. One was 12 days late and the other was 35 days late.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 857 student returns was selected for testing.
o One return was not calculated correctly. It was calculated as $2,270 but should have been $1,975.
o For one student who did not re-enroll in the Spring 2024 term, their Pell Grant was appropriately cancelled; however, the student’s Fall 2023 Pell Grant was also returned, even though the student had completed 100% of the term. Therefore, $1,555 was returned when it should not have been.
University of Nevada, Reno
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 421 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $2,443 but should have been $2,438. One return was calculated as $2,243 but should have been $2,235.
o Three of the returns were not timely. The three returns were 3 days, 4 days, and 10 days late, respectively.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: Yes, prior year finding 2023-003.
Recommendation: We recommend CSN, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure R2T4 is calculated correctly and timely. In particular, to enhance internal controls to ensure the appropriate days in the term are being used and that the appropriate amount of institution charges is used.
Views of Responsible Officials: The College of Southern Nevada agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Return of Title IV (R2T4)
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for CSN, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: In accordance with 34 CFR 668.173(b) and 34 CFR 668.22(e), when a student ceases attendance during a payment period or period of enrollment, drops, takes a leave of absence, or never begins attendance, institutions are required to calculate the percentage of Title IV aid earned following the guidance of the calculation worksheets in Appendix to Volume 5 of the FSA Handbook. When a return of Title IV aid is required, an institution has 45 days (or 30 days for students that never began attendance) to return the funds to Ed.
Condition: There were instances where the calculation of returns was not calculated correctly or were not returned within the required allotted time.
Cause: The following institutions did not have adequate internal controls to ensure R2T4 was calculated correct, and funds returned within the required time:
o College of Southern Nevada (CSN)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
Effect: The U.S. Department of Education did not receive returns timely or accurately.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: We noted the following for each institution:
College of Southern Nevada
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 1,953 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $870 but should have been $1,180. The other return was calculated as $579 but should have been $381.
o Two of the returns were not timely. One was 12 days late and the other was 35 days late.
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 857 student returns was selected for testing.
o One return was not calculated correctly. It was calculated as $2,270 but should have been $1,975.
o For one student who did not re-enroll in the Spring 2024 term, their Pell Grant was appropriately cancelled; however, the student’s Fall 2023 Pell Grant was also returned, even though the student had completed 100% of the term. Therefore, $1,555 was returned when it should not have been.
University of Nevada, Reno
A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 421 student returns was selected for testing.
o Two of the returns were not calculated correctly. One return was calculated as $2,443 but should have been $2,438. One return was calculated as $2,243 but should have been $2,235.
o Three of the returns were not timely. The three returns were 3 days, 4 days, and 10 days late, respectively.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: Yes, prior year finding 2023-003.
Recommendation: We recommend CSN, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure R2T4 is calculated correctly and timely. In particular, to enhance internal controls to ensure the appropriate days in the term are being used and that the appropriate amount of institution charges is used.
Views of Responsible Officials: The College of Southern Nevada agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Enrollment Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for NSU on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 690.83(b)(2) and 34 CFR 685.309 states that institutions are responsible for timely and accurate reporting of a student’s enrollment status and changes in those enrollment statues, whether they report directly or via a third-party servicer. When an Institution is made aware of a change in a student’s enrollment status, the Institution has 60 days to update the change in enrollment status via NSLDS.
Condition: Change in enrollment status was not reported accurately or timely.
Cause: The Nevada State University (NSU) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status was correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, NSU did not have adequate internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Effect: Non-timely and inaccurate reporting to the NSLDS could potentially impact future eligibility determinations and repayment provisions.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 772 students who had a change in their enrollment status was selected for testing. We noted four student’s enrollment status changes were not reported accurately. In addition, we noted 20 enrollment status changes were not reported timely. These twenty instances ranged from 2 days late to 62 days late with an average of 31 days late.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status is correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, we recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Nevada State University agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Enrollment Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for NSU on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 690.83(b)(2) and 34 CFR 685.309 states that institutions are responsible for timely and accurate reporting of a student’s enrollment status and changes in those enrollment statues, whether they report directly or via a third-party servicer. When an Institution is made aware of a change in a student’s enrollment status, the Institution has 60 days to update the change in enrollment status via NSLDS.
Condition: Change in enrollment status was not reported accurately or timely.
Cause: The Nevada State University (NSU) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status was correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, NSU did not have adequate internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Effect: Non-timely and inaccurate reporting to the NSLDS could potentially impact future eligibility determinations and repayment provisions.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 772 students who had a change in their enrollment status was selected for testing. We noted four student’s enrollment status changes were not reported accurately. In addition, we noted 20 enrollment status changes were not reported timely. These twenty instances ranged from 2 days late to 62 days late with an average of 31 days late.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status is correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, we recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Nevada State University agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Enrollment Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for NSU on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 690.83(b)(2) and 34 CFR 685.309 states that institutions are responsible for timely and accurate reporting of a student’s enrollment status and changes in those enrollment statues, whether they report directly or via a third-party servicer. When an Institution is made aware of a change in a student’s enrollment status, the Institution has 60 days to update the change in enrollment status via NSLDS.
Condition: Change in enrollment status was not reported accurately or timely.
Cause: The Nevada State University (NSU) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status was correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, NSU did not have adequate internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Effect: Non-timely and inaccurate reporting to the NSLDS could potentially impact future eligibility determinations and repayment provisions.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 772 students who had a change in their enrollment status was selected for testing. We noted four student’s enrollment status changes were not reported accurately. In addition, we noted 20 enrollment status changes were not reported timely. These twenty instances ranged from 2 days late to 62 days late with an average of 31 days late.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status is correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, we recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Nevada State University agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Enrollment Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for NSU on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 690.83(b)(2) and 34 CFR 685.309 states that institutions are responsible for timely and accurate reporting of a student’s enrollment status and changes in those enrollment statues, whether they report directly or via a third-party servicer. When an Institution is made aware of a change in a student’s enrollment status, the Institution has 60 days to update the change in enrollment status via NSLDS.
Condition: Change in enrollment status was not reported accurately or timely.
Cause: The Nevada State University (NSU) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status was correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, NSU did not have adequate internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Effect: Non-timely and inaccurate reporting to the NSLDS could potentially impact future eligibility determinations and repayment provisions.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 772 students who had a change in their enrollment status was selected for testing. We noted four student’s enrollment status changes were not reported accurately. In addition, we noted 20 enrollment status changes were not reported timely. These twenty instances ranged from 2 days late to 62 days late with an average of 31 days late.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status is correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, we recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Nevada State University agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Education
Student Financial Assistance Cluster:
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, 84.007
Federal Work-Study Program, 84.033
Federal Perkins Loan Program, 84.038
Federal Pell Grant Program, 84.063
Federal Direct Student Loans, 84.268
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education Grants, 84.379
Nurse Faculty Loan Program, 93.264
Health Professions Student Loans, Including Primary Care Loans and Loans for Disadvantaged
Students, 93.342
Nursing Student Loans, 93.364
Special Tests & Provisions – Enrollment Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included in the Student Financial Assistance Cluster for NSU on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: 34 CFR 690.83(b)(2) and 34 CFR 685.309 states that institutions are responsible for timely and accurate reporting of a student’s enrollment status and changes in those enrollment statues, whether they report directly or via a third-party servicer. When an Institution is made aware of a change in a student’s enrollment status, the Institution has 60 days to update the change in enrollment status via NSLDS.
Condition: Change in enrollment status was not reported accurately or timely.
Cause: The Nevada State University (NSU) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status was correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, NSU did not have adequate internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Effect: Non-timely and inaccurate reporting to the NSLDS could potentially impact future eligibility determinations and repayment provisions.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 out of a population of 772 students who had a change in their enrollment status was selected for testing. We noted four student’s enrollment status changes were not reported accurately. In addition, we noted 20 enrollment status changes were not reported timely. These twenty instances ranged from 2 days late to 62 days late with an average of 31 days late.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure changes in a student’s enrollment status is correctly reported to the National Student Clearinghouse. In addition, we recommend NSU enhance internal controls to ensure timely reporting of the change in enrollment status.
Views of Responsible Officials: The Nevada State University agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SP-2300023 and 2300026 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreements specified that the period of performance was to expire on June 30, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $81,075.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($189,351) out of a population of 1,032 ($2,372,376) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR payroll expenditures were 44 ($112,139) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $778 was charged to the grant and incurred in July 2023.
A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($32,118) out of a population of 538 ($242,467) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR goods and services expenditures were 49 ($25,743) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted four goods and services transactions totaling $413 were charged to the grant and incurred between July 2023 and December 2023.
Subsequently we reviewed a summary of expenditures on the two grant awards noted, and we noted $81,075 in expenditures charged to the grants that were incurred after June 30, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SP-2300023 and 2300026 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreements specified that the period of performance was to expire on June 30, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $81,075.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($189,351) out of a population of 1,032 ($2,372,376) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR payroll expenditures were 44 ($112,139) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $778 was charged to the grant and incurred in July 2023.
A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($32,118) out of a population of 538 ($242,467) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR goods and services expenditures were 49 ($25,743) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted four goods and services transactions totaling $413 were charged to the grant and incurred between July 2023 and December 2023.
Subsequently we reviewed a summary of expenditures on the two grant awards noted, and we noted $81,075 in expenditures charged to the grants that were incurred after June 30, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SP-2300023 and 2300026 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreements specified that the period of performance was to expire on June 30, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $81,075.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($189,351) out of a population of 1,032 ($2,372,376) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR payroll expenditures were 44 ($112,139) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $778 was charged to the grant and incurred in July 2023.
A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($32,118) out of a population of 538 ($242,467) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR goods and services expenditures were 49 ($25,743) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted four goods and services transactions totaling $413 were charged to the grant and incurred between July 2023 and December 2023.
Subsequently we reviewed a summary of expenditures on the two grant awards noted, and we noted $81,075 in expenditures charged to the grants that were incurred after June 30, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SP-2300023 and 2300026 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreements specified that the period of performance was to expire on June 30, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $81,075.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($189,351) out of a population of 1,032 ($2,372,376) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR payroll expenditures were 44 ($112,139) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $778 was charged to the grant and incurred in July 2023.
A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($32,118) out of a population of 538 ($242,467) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR goods and services expenditures were 49 ($25,743) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted four goods and services transactions totaling $413 were charged to the grant and incurred between July 2023 and December 2023.
Subsequently we reviewed a summary of expenditures on the two grant awards noted, and we noted $81,075 in expenditures charged to the grants that were incurred after June 30, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SP-2300023 and 2300026 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreements specified that the period of performance was to expire on June 30, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $81,075.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($189,351) out of a population of 1,032 ($2,372,376) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR payroll expenditures were 44 ($112,139) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $778 was charged to the grant and incurred in July 2023.
A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($32,118) out of a population of 538 ($242,467) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR goods and services expenditures were 49 ($25,743) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted four goods and services transactions totaling $413 were charged to the grant and incurred between July 2023 and December 2023.
Subsequently we reviewed a summary of expenditures on the two grant awards noted, and we noted $81,075 in expenditures charged to the grants that were incurred after June 30, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SP-2300023 and 2300026 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreements specified that the period of performance was to expire on June 30, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $81,075.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($189,351) out of a population of 1,032 ($2,372,376) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR payroll expenditures were 44 ($112,139) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $778 was charged to the grant and incurred in July 2023.
A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($32,118) out of a population of 538 ($242,467) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR goods and services expenditures were 49 ($25,743) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted four goods and services transactions totaling $413 were charged to the grant and incurred between July 2023 and December 2023.
Subsequently we reviewed a summary of expenditures on the two grant awards noted, and we noted $81,075 in expenditures charged to the grants that were incurred after June 30, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SP-2300023 and 2300026 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreements specified that the period of performance was to expire on June 30, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $81,075.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($189,351) out of a population of 1,032 ($2,372,376) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR payroll expenditures were 44 ($112,139) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $778 was charged to the grant and incurred in July 2023.
A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($32,118) out of a population of 538 ($242,467) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR goods and services expenditures were 49 ($25,743) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted four goods and services transactions totaling $413 were charged to the grant and incurred between July 2023 and December 2023.
Subsequently we reviewed a summary of expenditures on the two grant awards noted, and we noted $81,075 in expenditures charged to the grants that were incurred after June 30, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SP-2300023 and 2300026 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreements specified that the period of performance was to expire on June 30, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $81,075.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($189,351) out of a population of 1,032 ($2,372,376) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR payroll expenditures were 44 ($112,139) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $778 was charged to the grant and incurred in July 2023.
A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($32,118) out of a population of 538 ($242,467) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR goods and services expenditures were 49 ($25,743) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted four goods and services transactions totaling $413 were charged to the grant and incurred between July 2023 and December 2023.
Subsequently we reviewed a summary of expenditures on the two grant awards noted, and we noted $81,075 in expenditures charged to the grants that were incurred after June 30, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SP-2300023 and 2300026 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreements specified that the period of performance was to expire on June 30, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $81,075.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($189,351) out of a population of 1,032 ($2,372,376) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR payroll expenditures were 44 ($112,139) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $778 was charged to the grant and incurred in July 2023.
A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($32,118) out of a population of 538 ($242,467) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR goods and services expenditures were 49 ($25,743) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted four goods and services transactions totaling $413 were charged to the grant and incurred between July 2023 and December 2023.
Subsequently we reviewed a summary of expenditures on the two grant awards noted, and we noted $81,075 in expenditures charged to the grants that were incurred after June 30, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SP-2300023 and 2300026 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreements specified that the period of performance was to expire on June 30, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $81,075.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($189,351) out of a population of 1,032 ($2,372,376) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR payroll expenditures were 44 ($112,139) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $778 was charged to the grant and incurred in July 2023.
A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($32,118) out of a population of 538 ($242,467) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR goods and services expenditures were 49 ($25,743) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted four goods and services transactions totaling $413 were charged to the grant and incurred between July 2023 and December 2023.
Subsequently we reviewed a summary of expenditures on the two grant awards noted, and we noted $81,075 in expenditures charged to the grants that were incurred after June 30, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SP-2300023 and 2300026 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreements specified that the period of performance was to expire on June 30, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $81,075.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($189,351) out of a population of 1,032 ($2,372,376) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR payroll expenditures were 44 ($112,139) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $778 was charged to the grant and incurred in July 2023.
A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($32,118) out of a population of 538 ($242,467) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNR goods and services expenditures were 49 ($25,743) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted four goods and services transactions totaling $413 were charged to the grant and incurred between July 2023 and December 2023.
Subsequently we reviewed a summary of expenditures on the two grant awards noted, and we noted $81,075 in expenditures charged to the grants that were incurred after June 30, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award CC2312 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented and subawards were missing required information.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established and ensure subawards included all required information.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected by UNLV.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of three subawards out of a population of eight was selected for testing. All three subawards were missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award CC2312 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented and subawards were missing required information.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established and ensure subawards included all required information.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected by UNLV.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of three subawards out of a population of eight was selected for testing. All three subawards were missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award CC2312 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented and subawards were missing required information.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established and ensure subawards included all required information.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected by UNLV.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of three subawards out of a population of eight was selected for testing. All three subawards were missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award CC2312 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented and subawards were missing required information.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established and ensure subawards included all required information.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected by UNLV.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of three subawards out of a population of eight was selected for testing. All three subawards were missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award CC2312 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented and subawards were missing required information.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established and ensure subawards included all required information.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected by UNLV.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of three subawards out of a population of eight was selected for testing. All three subawards were missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award CC2312 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented and subawards were missing required information.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established and ensure subawards included all required information.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected by UNLV.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of three subawards out of a population of eight was selected for testing. All three subawards were missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award CC2312 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented and subawards were missing required information.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established and ensure subawards included all required information.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected by UNLV.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of three subawards out of a population of eight was selected for testing. All three subawards were missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award CC2312 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented and subawards were missing required information.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established and ensure subawards included all required information.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected by UNLV.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of three subawards out of a population of eight was selected for testing. All three subawards were missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award CC2312 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented and subawards were missing required information.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established and ensure subawards included all required information.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected by UNLV.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of three subawards out of a population of eight was selected for testing. All three subawards were missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award CC2312 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented and subawards were missing required information.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established and ensure subawards included all required information.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected by UNLV.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of three subawards out of a population of eight was selected for testing. All three subawards were missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
CCDF Cluster:
Child Care and Development Block Grant, 93.575
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award CC2312 included under assistance listing 93.575 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented and subawards were missing required information.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established and ensure subawards included all required information.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected by UNLV.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of three subawards out of a population of eight was selected for testing. All three subawards were missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Head Start, 93.600
Reporting
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing 93.600 for UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that grant recipients are required to submit a Federal Financial Report (SF-425). The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) requires direct recipients of certain federal awards to report subaward information.
Condition: There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of SF-425 reports or subaward information required by the FFATA.
Effect: Inaccurate information was reported to the federal agency on the SF-425 and may be reported to the federal agency for the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of six SF-425 reports submitted during the year was selected for testing. We noted that there was no evidence of review on any of the six SF-425 reports.
The entire population of one subaward report submitted during the year was selected for testing. We noted that there was no evidence of review for the one subaward report required by the FFATA.
The following errors were noted by report:
December 31, 2023 SF-425
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
Direct Costs $46,048 $45,892
Indirect costs $8,126 $8,077
July 31, 2023 SF-425 Final
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
Direct Costs $2,006,888 $2,006,935
Indirect costs $160,551 $160,555
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNR enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of SF-425 reports and subaward information required by the FFATA.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that state cost principle requirements apply to the mental health block grant. Therefore, the allowable activities and costs are included within the grant terms and conditions as passed-through the State of Nevada. The grant terms and conditions provide a budget and justification for various expenditure types. These expenditure types included: personnel, travel, operating, equipment, and contractual direct costs.
The operating costs included more specific justification for: website design, software, testing supplies, marketing materials, client transportation, translation services, medical equipment, and peer support group supplies.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were not included within the budget narrative included in the grant’s terms and conditions.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure allowable costs were charged to the grant.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $602
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction totaling $602 for a catered dinner for employees, students, partnering individuals, and the UNLV practice clinic to celebrate the year’s developments within related programs was charged to the grant. This charge while otherwise reasonable, was not included within the grant’s budget narrative and justification.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure allowable costs are charged to the grant.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award SG25656 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the subaward period of performance was to expire on February 28, 2024.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: $28,231
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($38,218) out of a population of 573 ($326,835) goods and services expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV goods and services expenditures were 31 ($24,615) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one goods and services transaction for $33 was charged to the grant and incurred in March 2024. Subsequently, we reviewed a summary of expenditures, and we noted $28,231 in expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after February 28, 2024.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services, 93.958
Subrecipient Monitoring
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant awards SG26221, SG25959, and SG26361 included under assistance listing 93.958 for UNLV and UNR, as applicable, on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that:
o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring.
o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward.
o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable.
Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, subawards were missing required information, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure required subrecipient monitoring policies were established, ensure subawards included all required information, and monitor subrecipient audit reports.
The University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) did not have adequate internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports.
Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: The entire population of three subrecipients/subawards was selected for testing across both UNLV (one) and UNR (two).
The following errors were noted:
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
The subaward was missing required communication including:
o Access to the subrecipient’s records by UNLV and other auditors
o Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward
In addition, UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies.
Lastly, there was no mechanism in place to verify the subrecipient was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNLV to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
University of Nevada, Reno
There was no mechanism in place to verify that one of the two subrecipients was audited, if required, or to monitor and review the audit report for audit findings that would require UNR to issue a management decision and ensure timely corrective action.
The audit report for the second subrecipient was not applicable for testing as it was the first year of the subaward.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies and enhance internal controls to ensure subawards include all required information. In addition, we recommend UNLV and UNR enhance internal controls to monitor subrecipient audit reports to ensure management decisions would be issued timely and subrecipients take timely corrective action, if applicable.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Allowable Costs/Cost Principles and Period of Performance
Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Affects grant award 22-1308.033 included under assistance listing 21.027 for UNLV on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) provides that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance.
The terms and conditions of the grant agreement specified that the term of the agreement was to expire on December 31, 2023.
Condition: Expenditures charged to the grant were incurred outside of the period of performance.
Cause: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) did not have adequate internal controls to ensure costs were incurred within the period of performance.
Effect: Unallowable costs were charged to the program.
Questioned Costs: Less than $25,000.
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 60 ($114,650) out of a population of 1,363 ($2,526,658) payroll expenditures across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. UNLV payroll expenditures were 26 ($59,191) of the 60 selected for testing. We noted one payroll transaction totaling $303 was charged to the grant and incurred in February 2024. Subsequently we reviewed a summary of payroll expenditures, and we noted $8,021 in payroll expenditures charged to the grant that were incurred after December 31, 2023.
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend UNLV enhance internal controls to ensure costs are incurred within the period of performance.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.
U.S. Department of Treasury
Pass-through the State of Nevada and others as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal
Awards
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund, 21.027
Reporting
Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance
Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards included under assistance listing
21.027 for UNR, UNLV, DRI, and SA on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform
Guidance) section 200.303 provides that non-federal entities must establish and maintain effect
internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the
federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the
federal award.
The OMB Compliance Supplement provides that reporting requirements for subrecipients are as
specified by the pass-through entity.
The pass-through entities required the submission of Quarterly Progress Reports
and/or Requests for Reimbursement.
Condition:
There was no evidence of review and approval (segregation of duties) between the preparer and
reviewer.
Information reported to the pass-through entity did not agree to underlying supporting records.
Cause:
The following institutions of the Nevada System of Higher Education did not have adequate internal
controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports submitted to the pass-through
entity:
o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR)
o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV)
o Desert Research Institute (DRI)
o System Administration (SA)
In addition, UNR, UNLV, and SA did not have adequate internal controls to ensure amounts reported
to the pass-through entity were supported by the underlying records.
Effect:
Inaccurate information was reported to the pass-through entity by UNR, UNLV, and SA. Inaccurate
information may be reported to the pass-through entity by
UNR, UNLV, SA, and DRI and not detected.
Questioned Costs: None
Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of eight Quarterly Progress Reports out of a
population of 52 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
A nonstatistical sample of 27 Requests for Reimbursement out of a population of 176 across the
Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing.
The following errors were noted by institution:
University of Nevada, Reno
Three of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNR. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on any of the three Quarterly Progress Reports.
In addition, for the quarter ended December 31, 2023 report for grant award #22UNRDN01, amounts
were not supported by the underlying records:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Households Served 2,492 7,455
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Four of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports were applicable to UNLV. For the quarter ended
December 31, 2023 and March 31, 2024 reports for grant award #23UNLVF01, amounts were not supported
by the underlying records as follows:
Quarter Ended December 31, 2023
Key Line Item Amounted Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 129,249 128,141 Households Served 575 966 Individuals Served 1,740 2,893
Quarter Ended March 31, 2024
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported Previously Expended 155,327 137,600
Households Served 2,797 2,827
Desert Research Institute
One of the 27 Requests for Reimbursement were applicable to DRI. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Request for Reimbursement selected for testing.
System Administration
One of the eight Quarterly Progress Reports was applicable to SA. We noted that there was no
evidence of review on the one Quarterly Progress Report selected for testing.
In addition, for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 report for grant award #23CCWIG01, amounts were
not supported by the underlying records as follows:
Key Line Item Amount Reported Amount Supported
CSN students served 971 1,451 GBC students served 120 160 TMCC students served 282 343 WNC students served 114 170
Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No
Recommendation: We recommend the Nevada System of Higher Education institutions listed
above enhance internal controls to provide for the documented review and approval of reports
submitted to pass-through entities and ensure amounts are supported by the underlying records.
Views of Responsible Officials: The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. System Administration agrees with this finding.